On 5/28/20 1:23 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 5/27/20 3:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> I think that each of those tests should have a separate unlikely() marker, >>> since the whole point here is that we don't expect either of those tests >>> to yield true in the huge majority of CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS executions. >> >> +1. I am not sure that the addition of unlikely() should be >> backpatched though, that's not something usually done. > > I backpatched and pushed the changes to the repeat() function. Any other > opinions regarding backpatch of the unlikely() addition to > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()?
So far I have Tom +1 Michael -1 me +0 on backpatching the addition of unlikely() to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). Assuming no one else chimes in I will push the attached to all supported branches sometime before Tom creates the REL_13_STABLE branch on Sunday. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
diff --git a/src/include/miscadmin.h b/src/include/miscadmin.h
index 14fa127..18bc8a7 100644
*** a/src/include/miscadmin.h
--- b/src/include/miscadmin.h
*************** extern void ProcessInterrupts(void);
*** 98,113 ****
#define CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() \
do { \
! if (InterruptPending) \
ProcessInterrupts(); \
} while(0)
#else /* WIN32 */
#define CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() \
do { \
! if (UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE()) \
pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(); \
! if (InterruptPending) \
ProcessInterrupts(); \
} while(0)
#endif /* WIN32 */
--- 98,113 ----
#define CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() \
do { \
! if (unlikely(InterruptPending)) \
ProcessInterrupts(); \
} while(0)
#else /* WIN32 */
#define CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() \
do { \
! if (unlikely(UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE())) \
pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals(); \
! if (unlikely(InterruptPending)) \
ProcessInterrupts(); \
} while(0)
#endif /* WIN32 */
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
