On 5/28/20 1:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 5/27/20 3:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I think that each of those tests should have a separate unlikely() marker,
>>> since the whole point here is that we don't expect either of those tests
>>> to yield true in the huge majority of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS executions.
>>
>> +1. I am not sure that the addition of unlikely() should be
>> backpatched though, that's not something usually done.
>
> I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other
> opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
So far I have
Tom +1
Michael -1
me +0
on backpatching the addition of unlikely() to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS().
Assuming no one else chimes in I will push the attached to all supported
branches sometime before Tom creates the REL_13_STABLE branch on Sunday.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development