From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Simplify formatting.c |
Date: | 2008-06-22 01:49:33 |
Message-ID: | 200806220149.m5M1nXa16104@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > The third step is for oracle_compat.c::initcap() to use
> > formatting.c::str_initcap(). You can see the result; patch attached
> > (not applied).
>
> > This greatly reduces the size of initcap(), with the downside that we
> > are making two extra copies of the string to convert it to/from char*.
>
> > Is this acceptable?
>
> I'd say not. Can't we do some more refactoring and avoid so many
> useless conversions? Seems like str_initcap is the wrong primitive API
> --- the work ought to be done by a function that takes a char pointer
> and a length. That would be a suitable basis for functions operating
> on both text datums and C strings.
Yea, I thought about that idea too but it is going to add a strlen()
calls in some places, but not in critical ones.
> (Perhaps what I should be asking is whether the performance of upper()
> and lower() is equally bad. Certainly all three should have comparable
> code, so maybe they all need refactoring.)
Yes, they do. I will work on the length idea and see how that goes.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-22 01:59:24 | Re: Simplify formatting.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-22 00:54:07 | Re: Simplify formatting.c |