On 2013-08-07 10:36:52 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas escribió: > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > heap_deform_tuple and slot_deform_tuple contain duplicated code. This > > > patch refactors them so that the guts are in a single place. > > > > > > I have checked the resulting assembly code for heap_deform_tuple, and > > > with the "inline" declaration, the gcc version I have (4.7.2) generates > > > almost identical output both after the patch than before, thus there > > > shouldn't be any slowdown. > > > > Although I'm generally in favor of eliminating duplicated code, I have > > to admit that in this case I'm not sure I see the point. > > Yeah, I guess in isolation this doesn't make that much sense. I am > hesitant to create a third copy in the minmax patch, but I will do that > for now and propose the refactoring later.
Well, you didn't mention upthread that you want to do this because you're going to need another variant of the same code. Imo that's sufficient reasoning. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
