Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: explain analyze timings
- From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
- To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: explain analyze timings
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:49:05 +0100
- Message-id: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C70F2(at)algol(dot)sollentuna(dot)se>
> > I still left two #ifdefs in there, for the addition and > subtraction of > > timeval:s specifically. They could be made functions/macros > too, just > > not sure if it's worth it. > > Probably not. What bothers me more is the unconditional use > of a static inline function; but IIRC we are only supporting > gcc-based builds on Windows, so that probably isn't worth > fixing either. I thought of that, and considered it a good thing to do it that way just because of that. If we ever port it to something that doesn't support it, we can always make it a regular function in the C file. //Magnus
- Prev by Date: Re: Half filled xlogs
- Next by Date: Re: [GENERAL] Simple query takes a long time on win2K
- Previous by thread: Re: explain analyze timings
- Next by thread: Half filled xlogs
- Indexes: