Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:07:21PM -0500, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> Yes, this is a performance patch, but as the subject says, it saves a few
>> instructions. I don't know how to write a test case that can measure savings of
>> skipping a few instructions in a startup sequence that potentially takes
>> thousands, or even millions, of instructions.
> Are we saying we don't want this patch?
I don't --- I think it makes the code less robust for no gain worthy
of the name.
regards, tom lane