On 31.08.23 16:10, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em qui., 31 de ago. de 2023 às 09:51, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net <mailto:and...@dunslane.net>> escreveu:On 2023-08-31 Th 07:41, John Naylor wrote:On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:07 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com <mailto:ranier...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Em qui., 31 de ago. de 2023 às 00:22, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz <mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz>> escreveu: >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 03:00:13PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote: >> > cstring_to_text has a small overhead, because call strlen for >> > pointer to char parameter. >> > >> > Is it worth the effort to avoid this, where do we know the size of the >> > parameter? >> >> Are there workloads where this matters? > > None, but note this change has the same spirit of 8b26769bc. - return cstring_to_text(""); + return cstring_to_text_with_len("", 0); This looks worse, so we'd better be getting something in return.I agree this is a bit ugly. I wonder if we'd be better off creating a function that returned an empty text value, so we'd just avoid converting the empty cstring altogether and say: return empty_text(); Hi, Thanks for the suggestion, I agreed. New patch is attached.
I think these patches make the code uniformly uglier and harder to understand.
If a performance benefit could be demonstrated, then making cstring_to_text() an inline function could be sensible. But I wouldn't go beyond that.
