Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Simplify formatting.c

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Simplify formatting.c
Date: 2008-06-22 01:49:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > The third step is for oracle_compat.c::initcap() to use
> > formatting.c::str_initcap().  You can see the result;  patch attached
> > (not applied).
> > This greatly reduces the size of initcap(), with the downside that we
> > are making two extra copies of the string to convert it to/from char*.
> > Is this acceptable?
> I'd say not.  Can't we do some more refactoring and avoid so many
> useless conversions?  Seems like str_initcap is the wrong primitive API
> --- the work ought to be done by a function that takes a char pointer
> and a length.  That would be a suitable basis for functions operating
> on both text datums and C strings.

Yea, I thought about that idea too but it is going to add a strlen()
calls in some places, but not in critical ones.

> (Perhaps what I should be asking is whether the performance of upper()
> and lower() is equally bad.  Certainly all three should have comparable
> code, so maybe they all need refactoring.)

Yes, they do.  I will work on the length idea and see how that goes.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-22 01:59:24
Subject: Re: Simplify formatting.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-22 00:54:07
Subject: Re: Simplify formatting.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group