Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> wrote:
>>> Just a small patch; hopefully useful.
>
>> This is valid saving as we are filling array ListenSocket[] in
>> StreamServerPort() serially, so during ClosePostmasterPorts() once if
>> it encountered PGINVALID_SOCKET, it is valid to break the loop.
>> Although savings are small considering this doesn't occur in any
>> performance path, still I think this is right thing to do in code.
>
>> It is better to register this patch in CF app list, unless someone
>> feels this is not right.
>
> 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. Why should
> we add such an assumption here?

+1.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company