Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation
Date: 2017-12-11 17:25:21
Message-ID: CANP8+jKbqpygOjOj7ndFfy9FdbHraKXAWRyeGn8Df0vnD5xLTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11 December 2017 at 16:27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> For a *very* large majority of the callers of AllocSetContextCreate,
> the context name is a simple C string constant, so we could just store
> the pointer to it and save the space and cycles required to copy it.

Why have the string at all in that case?

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-12-11 17:25:30 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-12-11 17:22:09 Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation