On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:13 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:00:37PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > Your adjustments in 0002 seem reasonable to me. I think it makes sense to > > ensure there is test coverage for pg_lfind32(), but I don't know if that > > syscache code is the right choice. For non-USE_SSE2 builds, it might make > > these lookups more expensive.
Yeah. On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 9:25 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that for non-USE_SSE2 builds, there is no additional overhead > as all assertion-related code in pg_lfind32 depends on USE_SSE2. Nathan is referring to RelationSupportsSysCache() and RelationHasSysCache(). They currently use binary search and using linear search on non-x86-64 platforms is probably slower. [Nathan again] > One option might be to create a small test module for pg_lfind32(). Here > is an example. LGTM, let's see what the buildfarm thinks of 0001. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com