Message263894
References:
Issue23910 -- added original optimization (661cdbd617b8).
Issue24276 -- it was significant rewritten (5dbf3d932a59).
My suggestion in msg263886 to revert the optimization was related to the original code. Now, after reminding the background, I think it is worth to keep the optimization and try to fix the code.
Making the cached tuple to save None adds additional complexity and overhead (about 5%). Here is a patch that uses different trick. The size of saved tuple is set to 0. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-04-21 08:00:22 | serhiy.storchaka | set | recipients:
+ serhiy.storchaka, brett.cannon, rhettinger, ncoghlan, vstinner, larry, eric.snow, random832, xiang.zhang |
2016-04-21 08:00:22 | serhiy.storchaka | set | messageid: <1461225622.57.0.507039436152.issue26811@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-04-21 08:00:22 | serhiy.storchaka | link | issue26811 messages |
2016-04-21 08:00:22 | serhiy.storchaka | create | |
|