From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: inline newNode() |
Date: | 2002-10-09 04:35:06 |
Message-ID: | 200210090435.g994Z6B07015@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers Postg롤 토토SQL : |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Right, palloc shouldn't. I was thinking of having another version of
> > palloc that _does_ clear out memory, and calling that from a newNode()
> > macro. We already know palloc is going to call MemoryContextAlloc, so
> > we could have a pallocC() that calls a new MemoryContextAllocC() that
> > would call the underlying memory allocation function, then do the loop
> > like MemSet to clear it.
>
> But if the MemSet is inside the called function then it cannot reduce
> the if-tests to a compile-time decision to invoke the word-zeroing loop.
> We want the MemSet to be expanded at the newNode call site, where the
> size of the allocated memory is a compile-time constant.
I can easily do the tests in the MemSet macro, but I can't do a loop in
a macro that has to return a value; I need while(). Though a loop in a
new fuction will not be as fast as a MemSet macro, I think it will be
better than what we have now with newNode only because newNode will be a
macro and not a function anymore, i.e. the MemSet will happen in the
function called by pallocC and not in newNode anymore, and there will be
zero code bloat. I wish I saw another way.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 05:21:56 | Re: inline newNode() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-09 04:28:32 | Re: inline newNode() |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-09 04:58:47 | Re: Allow SET to not start a transaction |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-09 04:28:32 | Re: inline newNode() |