| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inefficient bytea escaping? |
| Date: | 2006-05-27 16:27:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20060527162748.GD7450@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 06:36:15PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> >ISTM that in a single-threaded application such as the backend,
> >it should be libc's responsibility to avoid such overhead, not
> >ours.
>
> Obviously, except glibc guys seems to be philosophically
> opposed to this, so apps need to work around it.
>
> AFAIK at least *BSDs have got this right, don't know
> about others.
Given there is no way to know if you're running single threaded or not,
I don't think glibc can take chances like that.
In any case, this isn't the issue here. Glibc doesn't do any locking
unless pthread is linked in. Ofcourse, it takes a few cycles to
determine that, but I don't think that'd cause a major slowdown.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-05-27 17:23:35 | Re: Inefficient bytea escaping? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-27 15:52:40 | Re: LIKE, leading percent, bind parameters and indexes |