Re: Inefficient bytea escaping?

[Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>]

Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> > With -lpthread
> > lock.enabled     323s
> > lock.disabled     50s
> > lock.unlocked     36s
>
> I forgot to test with -lpthread, my bad.  Indeed by default
> something less expensive that full locking is going on.
>
> > The crux of the matter is though, if you're calling something a million
> > times, you're better off trying to find an alternative anyway. There is
> > a certain amount of overhead to calling shared libraries and no amount
> > of optimisation of the library is going save you that.
>
> The crux of the matter was if its possible to use fwrite
> as easy string combining mechanism and the answer is no,
> because it's not lightweight enough.
IIRC the windows port make use of multi-threading to simulate signals and it's likely that 
some add-on modules will bring in libs like pthread. It would be less ideal if PostgreSQL 
was designed to take a significant performance hit when that happens. Especially if a viable 
alternative exists.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren