On 2017-10-02 15:01:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-10-02 17:57:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > Done that way. It's a bit annoying, because we've to take care to
> > > initialize the "unused" part of the array with a valid signalling it's
> > > an unused mapping. Can't use 0 for that because fmgr_builtins[0] is a
> > > valid entry.
> > 
> > The prototype code I posted further upthread just used -1 as the "unused"
> > marker. There's no reason the array can't be int16 rather than uint16,
> > and "if (index < 0)" is probably a faster test anyway.
> Right, but whether we use -1 or UINT16_MAX or such doesn't matter. The
> relevant bit is that we can't use 0, so we can't rely on the rest of the
> array being zero initialized, but instead of to initialize all of it
> explicitly.  I've no real feelings about using -1 or UINT16_MAX - I'd be
> very surprised if there's any sort of meaningful performance difference.

I pushed a further cleaned up version of these two patches.  If you see
a way to avoid initializing the "trailing" part of the
fmgr_builtin_oid_index in a different manner, I'm all ears ;)


Andres Freund

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

Reply via email to