> > Hm, what were the tests exactly? Offhand I'd expect
> something like a
> > SELECT COUNT(*) on a large but not-too-wide table to show
> noticeable
> > improvement.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> I STAND CORRECTED! My tests were high volume record by
> record iterators, etc. Read and drool, gentlemen.

Wow, that's just great!

Was that with the volatile attribute or not?

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> Was that with the volatile attribute or not?

I doubt volatile would make any visible performance difference --- the
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls that are performance-critical are in places
where the compiler couldn't try to optimize away the fetches anyway.
The volatile qualifier is just needed to cover our rears in case a
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is used in some fairly small loop with no external
function calls.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly