Andres Freund <and...@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.
> 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. 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.
> 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.
> 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.
regards, tom lane
