Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-10-03 12:54:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (1) The need to use sprintf for portability means that we need very
>> tight constraints on the precision spec *and* the buffer size *and*
>> the format type (%f pretty much destroys certainty about how long the
>> output string is). So this isn't going to be general purpose code.
>> I think just writing it into float[48]out is sufficient.

> Well, the numbers suggest it's also useful to do so from snprintf - it's
> not that rare that we output floating point numbers from semi
> performance critical code, even leaving aside float[48]out. So I'm not
> convinced that we shouldn't do this from within snprintf.c too. Now we
> could open-code it twice, but i'm not sure I see the point.

I do not see the point of messing with snprintf.c here. I doubt that
strfromd is faster than the existing sprintf call (because the latter
can use ".*" instead of serializing and deserializing the precision).
Even if it is, I do not want to expose an attractive-nuisance API
in a header, and I think this would be exactly that.

> If we just define the API as having to guarantee there's enough space
> for the output format, I think it'll work well enough for now?

No, because that's a recipe for buffer-overflow bugs. It's *hard*
to be sure the buffer is big enough, and easy to make breakable
assumptions.

> snprintf.c already assumes everything floating point can be output in
> 1024 chars, no?

Indeed, and it's got hacks like a forced limit to precision 350 in order
to make that safe. I don't want to be repeating the reasoning in
fmtfloat() in a bunch of other places.

regards, tom lane