Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
| От | Peter Eisentraut |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 693d784b-d82a-3168-58a3-c1e9f428bfdb@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Keep elog(ERROR) and ereport(ERROR) calls in the cold path
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-06 02:24, David Rowley wrote: >> I would add DEBUG1 back into the conditional, like >> >> if (__builtin_constant_p(elevel) && ((elevel) >= ERROR || (elevel) <= >> DEBUG1) ? \ > > hmm, but surely we don't want to move all code that's in the same > branch as an elog(DEBUG1) call into a cold area. Yeah, nevermind that. > The v3 patch just put an unlikely() around the errstart() call if the > level was <= DEBUG1. That just to move the code that's inside the if > (errstart(...)) in the macro into a cold area. That could be useful. Depends on how much effect it has. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: