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