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.
committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers