Neil Conway wrote:
memcpy(new_status, old_status, len) would be faster yet. Which is what I
originally implemented, and then decided the sprintf() was clearer
(since performance isn't very important here). On reflection, memcpy() +
strcpy() should be fine; I'll commit this tomorrow.
Applied.
-Ne
Russell Smith wrote:
*** 1083,1091
locallock->lock, locallock->tag.mode);
old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
! new_status = (char *) palloc(strlen(old_status) + 10);
strcpy(new_status, old_status);
! strcat(new_status, " waiting");
Yes, reduced one round of counting the length of new_status.
"Russell Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the problem is speed, then this may be faster.
>
>
> Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c
> ===
> RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgs
If the problem is speed, then this may be faster.
Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
retrieving revision 1.147
diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
*** src/backend/storage
off-by-one is true, but I am not sure if the revised code is faster.
sprintf() need the extra job to parse the format. In win32, I am sure it is
much slower.
"Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This patch refactors some code in WaitOnLock slightly. The old code was
> sl
This patch refactors some code in WaitOnLock slightly. The old code was
slow, and I believe it was off-by-one (it allocates one byte of memory
more than needed).
Barring any objections I'll apply this to HEAD later today.
-Neil
Index: src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c
=
