Re: Varlena and binary

From: Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Varlena and binary
Date: 2011-02-07 21:57:39
Message-ID: 201102072257.39152.rsmogura@softperience.eu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Just from curious may I ask in which direction this will go, and how this will
affect performance of text and binary format?

Actually I started to make smaller improvements, and I think about one big to
encode text (when client and server encoding are different) directly to
StringInfo, without intermediate buffer.

Thanks in advice
Radek

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> Monday 07 February 2011 17:12:07
> =?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= <mail(at)smogura(dot)eu> writes:
> > I'm sending small patch for textsend. It reduces unnecessary copies, and
> > memory usage for duplication of varlena data. May you look?
>
> This code will break the day that text and bytea don't have the same
> internal representation, which seems likely to be soon. Barring some
> compelling evidence of a major performance improvement obtainable this
> way, I don't think we want this patch.
>
> regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-02-07 22:01:22 Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-07 21:14:20 Re: More extension issues: ownership and search_path