Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection
| От | Jim Nasby | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5452B4BB.8020704@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) | 
| Ответы | Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On 10/30/14, 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> This switches from using a single if() with multiple conditions &&'d >> together to a bunch of if() continue's. I don't know if those will perform >> the same, and AFAIK this is pretty performance critical. > Well, we could still use the old notation with a single if(). That's > not much complicated to change. I actually prefer the multiple if's; it reads a LOT cleaner. I don't know what the compiler will do with it though. If we stick with this version I'd argue it makes more sense to just stick the sync_node = and priority = statements intothe if block and ditch the continue. </nitpick> -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: