On 2016-07-19 14:18:22 +0300, amatv...@bitec.ru wrote:
> Hi
> > Using TLS will slow down things noticeably though. So if we were to go
> > there, we'd have to make up for some constant slowdown.
> I can not understand why?
> I've read
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686749(v=vs.85).aspx
> and
> http://david-grs.github.io/tls_performance_overhead_cost_linux/
> """
> The results are quite straightforward: no overhead at all.
> """
>  0x0000000000404f40 <+0>:     inc    DWORD PTR [rip+0x202382]
>  vs
>  0x0000000000404f50 <+0>:     inc    DWORD PTR fs:0xfffffffffffffffc

Not really true IIRC. For one segment offset stuff is encoded more
widely, and for another, it'll generate more uops in many
microarchitectures.  Also, we actually *do* qualify for the exception in
the blog you linked above: We have a fair amount of dynamically linked

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to