Re: [PATCHES] trivial refactoring of WaitOnLock

2005-03-10 Thread Neil Conway 
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.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
  http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [PATCHES] trivial refactoring of WaitOnLock

2005-03-09 Thread Russell Smith 
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/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 -   1.147
--- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 9 Mar 2005 08:17:33 -
***
*** 1074,1079 
--- 1074,1080 
   ResourceOwner owner)
  {
LockMethod  lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
+   intlen;
char   *new_status,
   *old_status;

***
*** 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);
set_ps_display(new_status);

awaitedLock = locallock;
--- 1084,1093 
   locallock-lock, locallock-tag.mode);

old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
!   len = strlen(old_status);
!   new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 9);
strcpy(new_status, old_status);
!   strcpy(new_status[len],  waiting);
set_ps_display(new_status);

awaitedLock = locallock;









On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:42 pm, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
 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
  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
  ===
  RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
  retrieving revision 1.147
  diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
  *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 - 1.147
  --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 8 Mar 2005 05:42:06 -
  ***
  *** 1076,1081 
  --- 1076,1082 
LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
char*new_status,
   *old_status;
  + size_t len;
 
Assert(lockmethodid  NumLockMethods);
 
  ***
  *** 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);
set_ps_display(new_status);
 
awaitedLock = locallock;
  --- 1084,1092 
   locallock-lock, locallock-tag.mode);
 
old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
  ! len = strlen(old_status);
  ! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 8 + 1);
  ! sprintf(new_status, %s waiting, old_status);
set_ps_display(new_status);
 
awaitedLock = locallock;
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ---(end of broadcast)---
  TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
  (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
 
 
 
 
 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
 
http://archives.postgresql.org
 
 

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [PATCHES] trivial refactoring of WaitOnLock

2005-03-09 Thread Qingqing Zhou 

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/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
 retrieving revision 1.147
 diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
 *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 -
1.147
 --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 9 Mar 2005 08:17:33 -
 ***
 *** 1074,1079 
 --- 1074,1080 
ResourceOwner owner)
   {
 LockMethod  lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
 +   intlen;
 char   *new_status,
*old_status;

 ***
 *** 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);
 set_ps_display(new_status);

 awaitedLock = locallock;
 --- 1084,1093 
locallock-lock, locallock-tag.mode);

 old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
 !   len = strlen(old_status);
 !   new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 9);
 strcpy(new_status, old_status);
 !   strcpy(new_status[len],  waiting);
 set_ps_display(new_status);

 awaitedLock = locallock;









 On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:42 pm, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
  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
   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
   ===
   RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
   retrieving revision 1.147
   diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
   *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 - 1.147
   --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 8 Mar 2005 05:42:06 -
   ***
   *** 1076,1081 
   --- 1076,1082 
 LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
 char*new_status,
*old_status;
   + size_t len;
  
 Assert(lockmethodid  NumLockMethods);
  
   ***
   *** 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);
 set_ps_display(new_status);
  
 awaitedLock = locallock;
   --- 1084,1092 
locallock-lock, locallock-tag.mode);
  
 old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
   ! len = strlen(old_status);
   ! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 8 + 1);
   ! sprintf(new_status, %s waiting, old_status);
 set_ps_display(new_status);
  
 awaitedLock = locallock;
  
 
 

 --
--
  
 
 
  
   ---(end of
broadcast)---
   TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
   (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
  
 
 
 
  ---(end of broadcast)---
  TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
 
 http://archives.postgresql.org
 
 

 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
 (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [PATCHES] trivial refactoring of WaitOnLock

2005-03-09 Thread Neil Conway 
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);
set_ps_display(new_status);
awaitedLock = locallock;
--- 1084,1093 
   locallock-lock, locallock-tag.mode);
old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
!   len = strlen(old_status);
!   new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 9);
strcpy(new_status, old_status);
!   strcpy(new_status[len],  waiting);
set_ps_display(new_status);
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.

-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
 joining column's datatypes do not match

Re: [PATCHES] trivial refactoring of WaitOnLock

2005-03-08 Thread Qingqing Zhou 
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
 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
 ===
 RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/pgsql/src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c,v
 retrieving revision 1.147
 diff -c -r1.147 lock.c
 *** src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 1 Mar 2005 21:14:59 - 1.147
 --- src/backend/storage/lmgr/lock.c 8 Mar 2005 05:42:06 -
 ***
 *** 1076,1081 
 --- 1076,1082 
   LockMethod lockMethodTable = LockMethods[lockmethodid];
   char*new_status,
  *old_status;
 + size_t len;

   Assert(lockmethodid  NumLockMethods);

 ***
 *** 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);
   set_ps_display(new_status);

   awaitedLock = locallock;
 --- 1084,1092 
  locallock-lock, locallock-tag.mode);

   old_status = pstrdup(get_ps_display());
 ! len = strlen(old_status);
 ! new_status = (char *) palloc(len + 8 + 1);
 ! sprintf(new_status, %s waiting, old_status);
   set_ps_display(new_status);

   awaitedLock = locallock;








 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
 (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org