On 6/30/17 08:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/24/17 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ah, I was about to suggest the same thing, but I was coming at it from
>> the standpoint of not requiring buffers several times larger than
>> necessary, which could in itself cause avoidable palloc failures.
>> I was going to suggest a small variant actually: run the conversion
>> function an extra time only if the string is long enough to make the
>> space consumption interesting, say
> I had thought about something like that, too, but my concern is that we
> then have double the code paths to test.  I have run some performance
> tests and I couldn't detect any differences between the variants.  So
> unless someone has any other insights, I think I'll go with the proposed
> patch by tomorrow.


Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to