On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:28 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> According to grep -rE "appendStringInfoString\(.*\.data\);" . we have 13
> such matches. None of them seem to be in very performance critical places,
> perhaps with the exception of xmlconcat().
>
> Would you say that we should build a macro
On 22 December 2015 at 01:58, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:08 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
> >> I left out the changes like
> >>
> >>> - appendStringInfoString(&collist, buf.data);
> >>> + appendBinaryStringInfo(&collist, buf.data, buf.len);
> >>
> >>
>
2015-12-21 13:58 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas :
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:08 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
> >> I left out the changes like
> >>
> >>> - appendStringInfoString(&collist, buf.data);
> >>> + appendBinaryStringInfo(&collist, buf.data, buf.len);
> >>
> >>
> >> becaus
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:08 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
>> I left out the changes like
>>
>>> - appendStringInfoString(&collist, buf.data);
>>> + appendBinaryStringInfo(&collist, buf.data, buf.len);
>>
>>
>> because they're not an improvement in readablity, IMHO, and they w
David Rowley wrote:
> On 2 July 2015 at 21:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > I left out the changes like
> >
> > - appendStringInfoString(&collist, buf.data);
> >> + appendBinaryStringInfo(&collist, buf.data, buf.len);
> >>
> >
> > because they're not an improvement
On 2 July 2015 at 21:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Applied the straightforward parts.
Thanks for committing.
> I left out the changes like
>
> - appendStringInfoString(&collist, buf.data);
>> + appendBinaryStringInfo(&collist, buf.data, buf.len);
>>
>
> because
On 06/15/2015 03:56 AM, David Rowley wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 12:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 5/12/15 4:33 AM, David Rowley wrote:
Shortly after I sent the previous patch I did a few more searches and
also found some more things that are not quite right.
Most of these are to use the binary
On 29 May 2015 at 12:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/12/15 4:33 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> > Shortly after I sent the previous patch I did a few more searches and
> > also found some more things that are not quite right.
> > Most of these are to use the binary append method when the length of t
On 5/12/15 4:33 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> Shortly after I sent the previous patch I did a few more searches and
> also found some more things that are not quite right.
> Most of these are to use the binary append method when the length of the
> string is already known.
For these cases it might be
On 12 May 2015 at 12:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/11/15 6:25 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> > I've attached a small patch which just fixes a few appendStringInfo*
> > calls that are not quite doing things the way that it was intended.
>
> done
>
>
Thank you for pushing.
Shortly after I sent the
On 4/11/15 6:25 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> I've attached a small patch which just fixes a few appendStringInfo*
> calls that are not quite doing things the way that it was intended.
done
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
I've attached a small patch which just fixes a few appendStringInfo* calls
that are not quite doing things the way that it was intended.
Regards
David Rowley
appendstringinfo_fix.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chang
12 matches
Mail list logo
