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

Re: inline newNode()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: inline newNode()
Date: 2002-10-10 04:00:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Can someone explain to me why memset() would ever be better than MemSet()?

memset() should *always* be faster than any C-coded implementation
thereof.  Any competent assembly-language writer can beat C-level
locutions, or at least equal them, if he's willing to expend the

I've frankly been astonished at the number of platforms where it
seems memset() has not been coded with an appropriate degree of
tenseness.  The fact that we've found it useful to invent MemSet()
is a pretty damning indictment of the competence of modern C-library

Or am I just stuck in the obsolete notion that vendors should provide
some amount of platform-specific tuning, and not a generic library?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: 韩近强Date: 2002-10-10 04:11:55
Subject: inquiry about multi-row resultset in functions
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-10-09 22:45:41
Subject: Re: Damn slow query

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-10-10 04:56:04
Subject: Re: inline newNode()
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-10-09 21:15:23
Subject: Re: inline newNode()

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