Commit b6335a3f authored by Robert Haas's avatar Robert Haas

Demote some sanity checks in BufferIsValid() to assertions.

Testing reveals that this macro is a hot-spot for index-only-scans.
Per discussion with Tom Lane.
parent deb15803
......@@ -78,20 +78,24 @@ extern PGDLLIMPORT int32 *LocalRefCount;
* True iff the given buffer number is valid (either as a shared
* or local buffer).
*
* This is not quite the inverse of the BufferIsInvalid() macro, since this
* adds sanity rangechecks on the buffer number.
*
* Note: For a long time this was defined the same as BufferIsPinned,
* that is it would say False if you didn't hold a pin on the buffer.
* I believe this was bogus and served only to mask logic errors.
* Code should always know whether it has a buffer reference,
* independently of the pin state.
*
* Note: For a further long time this was not quite the inverse of the
* BufferIsInvalid() macro, in that it also did sanity checks to verify
* that the buffer number was in range. Most likely, this macro was
* originally intended only to be used in assertions, but its use has
* since expanded quite a bit, and the overhead of making those checks
* even in non-assert-enabled builds can be significant. Thus, we've
* now demoted the range checks to assertions within the macro itself.
*/
#define BufferIsValid(bufnum) \
( \
(bufnum) != InvalidBuffer && \
(bufnum) >= -NLocBuffer && \
(bufnum) <= NBuffers \
AssertMacro((bufnum) <= NBuffers && (bufnum) >= -NLocBuffer), \
(bufnum) != InvalidBuffer \
)
/*
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment