From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence |
Date: | 2013-11-04 05:20:25 |
Message-ID: | 20224.1383542425@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think this is adding fragility for absolutely no meaningful savings.
>> The existing code does not depend on the assumption that the array
>> is filled consecutively and no entries are closed early.
> As I could see, it appears to me that code in ServerLoop and
> initMasks is already dependent on it, if any socket is closed out of
> order, it can break the logic in these API's. Do me and Gurjeet are
> missing some point here?
It's not hard to foresee that we might have to fix those assumptions
someday. If we were buying a lot by adding a similar assumption here,
it might be worth doing even in the face of having to revert it later.
But we're not buying much. A few instructions during postmaster shutdown
is entirely negligible.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-11-04 07:38:27 | Re: missing RelationCloseSmgr in FreeFakeRelcacheEntry? |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-11-04 04:21:26 | Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence |