| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench - refactor init functions with buffers |
| Date: | 2020-03-28 18:49:31 |
| Message-ID: | 28051.1585421371@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-03-27 19:57:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That being the case, I'd think a better design principle is "make your
>> new code look like the code around it", which would tend to weigh against
>> introducing StringInfo uses into pgbench when there's none there now and
>> a bunch of PQExpBuffer instead. So I can't help thinking the advice
>> you're being given here is suspect.
> I don't agree with this. This is a "fresh" usage of StringInfo. That's
> different to adding one new printed line among others built with
> pqexpbuffer. If we continue adding large numbers of new uses of both
> pieces of infrastructure, we're just making things more confusing.
Why? I'm not aware of any intention to deprecate/remove PQExpBuffer,
and I doubt it'd be a good thing to try. It does some things that
StringInfo won't, notably cope with OOM without crashing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-03-28 18:54:06 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-28 18:43:23 | Re: pgsql: Add kqueue(2) support to the WaitEventSet API. |