On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:05, Richard Guo wrote:
> +1. I think this is a nice tidy-up.
Pushed. Thanks for the reviews.
David
Thanks for having a look.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:15, Chao Li wrote:
> I have only a trivial comment. As you pull out the shared code into
> count_common_leading_pathkeys_ordered()/unordered(), it’s reasonable to make
> them inline, which ensures the new code has the same performance as befor
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:05, Richard Guo wrote:
> FWIW, I complained about the stray check in has_useful_pathkeys() in
> [1] last week, but you were quicker than me in making the code change
> to remove it.
I missed that. I'm confident that line does nothing but waste cycles.
A quick look at how
> On Oct 14, 2025, at 19:22, David Rowley wrote:
>
> What makes you think making them inline would make the performance the
> same as before? The previous functions were not inlined, and I've not
> made any changes that should affect the compiler's ability to choose
> to inline these functions
> On Oct 14, 2025, at 14:02, David Rowley wrote:
>
> When working on a5a68dd6d I noticed that truncate_useless_pathkeys()
> uses a bunch of different static helper functions that are mostly the
> same as each other. Most of them differ only in which field of
> PlannerInfo they look at.
>
> Th
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 3:03 PM David Rowley wrote:
> Here's a list of what I've changed:
>
> 1. Add count_common_leading_pathkeys_ordered() function to check for
> leading common pathkeys and use that for sort_pathkeys,
> window_pathkeys and window_pathkeys.
> 2. Add count_common_leading_pathkeys
