| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works |
| Date: | 2018-09-26 21:49:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20180926214952.ol6b6kawc6u3tvu5@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-09-26 17:41:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I'm not saying we shouldn't default to our printf - in fact I think we
> > probably past due to use a faster float->string conversion than we
> > portably get from the OS - but I don't think we can default to our
> > sprintf without doing something about the float conversion performance.
>
> Well, if you're unhappy about snprintf.c's performance, you could review
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/19/1763/
> so I can push that. In my tests, that got us down to circa 10% penalty
> for float conversions.
Uh, I can do that, but the fact remains that your commit slowed down
COPY and other conversion intensive workloads by a *significant* amount.
I'm ok helping with improving/winning-back performance, but I do think
the obligation to do so remains with the committer/authors that caused a
performance regression.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-26 22:04:20 | Re: Performance improvements for src/port/snprintf.c |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-09-26 21:48:00 | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |