Hi,
On 2023-01-17 12:26:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Here's an updated version of the move to representing instr_time as
> > nanoseconds. It's now split into a few patches:
>
> I took a quick look through this.
Thanks!
> > 0001) Add INSTR_TIME_SET_ZERO() calls where otherwise 0002 causes gcc to
> > warn
> > Alternatively we can decide to deprecate INSTR_TIME_SET_ZERO() and
> > just allow to assign 0.
>
> I think it's probably wise to keep the macro. If we ever rethink this
> again, we'll be glad we kept it. Similarly, IS_ZERO is a good idea
> even if it would work with just compare-to-zero.
Perhaps an INSTR_TIME_ZERO() that could be assigned in variable definitions
could give us the best of both worlds?
> I'm almost tempted to suggest you define instr_time as a struct with a
> uint64 field, just to help keep us honest about that.
I can see that making sense. Unless somebody pipes up with opposition to that
plan soon, I'll see how it goes.
> > 0003) Add INSTR_TIME_SET_SECOND()
> > This is used in 0004. Just allows setting an instr_time to a time in
> > seconds, allowing for a cheaper loop exit condition in 0004.
>
> Code and comments are inconsistent about whether it's SET_SECOND or
> SET_SECONDS. I think I prefer the latter, but don't care that much.
That's probably because I couldn't decide... So I'll go with your preference.
> > 0004) report nanoseconds in pg_test_timing
>
> Didn't examine 0004 in any detail, but the others look good to go
> other than these nits.
Thanks for looking!
Greetings,
Andres Freund