On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > As Andres has already pointed, may be we want to move above code in a > separate > function, and just call that function here in case the hash is not already > built.
No, I think what Andres is saying is that we ought to build the hash table before we ever reach this function, so that we don't have to have a branch here to check whether it's been done. I don't see why that's particularly hard -- it can be jammed into the startup sequence someplace early, I assume. In EXEC_BACKEND builds it will have to be redone in each child, but that's just a matter of sticking a call into SubPostmasterMain() as well as PostMasterMain(). Aside from that issue, this seems like a pretty boring patch. If a hash table is faster than a binary search, then it is. Using simplehash makes sense for this application, I think, and I'm not really sure what else there is to say. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
