| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString |
| Date: | 2013-09-28 11:11:29 |
| Message-ID: | 5246B961.50107@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.09.2013 12:44, David Rowley wrote:
> The macro for test 4 was as follows:
> #define appendStringInfoStringConst(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf,
> (s), sizeof(s)-1)
If that makes any difference in practice, I wonder if we should just do:
#define appendStringInfoString(buf, s) appendBinaryStringInfo(buf, (s),
strlen(s))
With a compiler worth its salt, the strlen(s) will be optimized into a
constant, if s is a constant. If it's not a constant, we'll just end up
calling strlen(), like appendStringInfoString would anyway. That would
turn a single function call into two in all of the non-constant
callsites, though, bloating the code, so it might not be a win overall.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2013-09-28 11:40:47 | Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString |
| Previous Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2013-09-28 10:31:23 | Re: plpgsql.print_strict_params |