From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Speedup usages of pg_*toa() functions |
Date: | 2020-06-13 00:36:36 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvqLqSYZY2T3g3SUuOcHwbLbo86SAtKmDEwseumDx65+0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:52, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "David" == David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> David> Pending any objections, I'd like to push both of these patches
> David> in the next few days to master.
>
> For the second patch, can we take the opportunity to remove the
> extraneous blank line at the top of pg_ltoa, and add the two missing
> "extern"s in builtins.h for pg_ultoa_n and pg_ulltoa_n ?
>
> David> Anyone object to changing the signature of these functions in
> David> 0002, or have concerns about allocating the maximum memory that
> David> we might require in int8out()?
>
> Changing the function signatures seems safe enough. The memory thing
> only seems likely to be an issue if you allocate a lot of text strings
> for bigint values without a context reset, and I'm not sure where that
> would happen (maybe passing large bigint arrays to pl/perl or pl/python
> would do it?)
I ended up chickening out of doing the larger allocation
unconditionally. Instead, I pushed the original idea of doing the
palloc/memcpy of the length returned by pg_lltoa. That gets us most
of the gains without the change in memory usage behaviour.
Thanks for your reviews on this.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-06-13 00:44:07 | Re: Add tap test for --extra-float-digits option |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-06-13 00:12:26 | Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes |