Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString
Date: 2013-10-30 08:51:57
Message-ID: CAApHDvr_bGBmzqNq7EHDQAj8hwEtcPW8mZkv=ffB5Dbvz8o-Ug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:10 PM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:44 PM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
>
>> I did some benchmarking earlier in the week for the new patch which was
>> just commited to allow formatting in the log_line_prefix string. In version
>> 0.4 of the patch there was some performance regression as I was doing
>> appendStringInfo(buf, "%*s", padding, variable); instead of
>> appendStringInfoString(buf, variable); This regression was fixed in a later
>> version of the patch by only using appendStringInfo when the padding was 0.
>>
>> More details here:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvreSGYvtXJvqHcXZL8_tXiKKiFXhQyXgqtnQ5Yo=MEfMg@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> I've attached a the cleanup patch for this. This one just converts
> instances of appendStringInfo into appendStringInfoString where
> appendStringInfo does no formatting or just has the format "%s".
>
>
I've attached a re-based version of this.

>
>
>> David Rowley
>>
>
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
appendStringInfo_cleanup_v0.5.patch.gz application/x-gzip 17.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-10-30 09:10:39 Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Previous Message Leonardo Francalanci 2013-10-30 07:55:26 Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments