[PATCH]Remove obsolete macro CHECKFLOATVAL in btree_gist
Hi
Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline subroutines,
but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and fixed at 607f8ce74.
Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL usage in contrib/btree_gist, and tried to fix it according to 607f8ce74.
The attached patch has been testified in master. All tap tests passed.
Regards,
Tang
Attachments:
0001-Remove-obsolete-macro-CHECKFLOATVAL.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=0001-Remove-obsolete-macro-CHECKFLOATVAL.patchDownload+7-22
On Friday, August 6, 2021 11:14 PM, tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline subroutines,
but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and fixed at 607f8ce74.Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL usage in contrib/btree_gist, and tried to fix it according to 607f8ce74.
Added above patch in commit fest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3287/
Regards,
Tang
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:08:59AM +0000, tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
On Friday, August 6, 2021 11:14 PM, tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com <tanghy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
Commit 6bf0bc842 replaced float.c's CHECKFLOATVAL() macro with static inline subroutines,
but the fix introduced a performance regression as Tom Lane pointed out and fixed at 607f8ce74.Found obsolete CHECKFLOATVAL usage in contrib/btree_gist, and tried to fix it according to 607f8ce74.
Added above patch in commit fest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3287/
Yes, that does not seem wise on performance grounds. The case of
!zero_is_valid is never reached, so it seems like this code was just a
copy-paste from the float code in the backend. Your patch looks right
to me.
--
Michael
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:04:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Yes, that does not seem wise on performance grounds. The case of
!zero_is_valid is never reached, so it seems like this code was just a
copy-paste from the float code in the backend. Your patch looks right
to me.
Applied.
--
Michael
On Thursday, August 19, 2021 12:28 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:04:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Yes, that does not seem wise on performance grounds. The case of
!zero_is_valid is never reached, so it seems like this code was just a
copy-paste from the float code in the backend. Your patch looks right
to me.Applied.
Thanks for you check and commit, I've changed the patch's commit fest status to 'committed'.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/3287/
Regards,
Tang