| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions |
| Date: | 2019-10-04 15:28:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20191004152808.hm6qdvbdnpe4ieom@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-10-04 14:27:44 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> Is there any specific reason for hard coding the *base* of a number
> representing the string in strtouint64(). I understand that currently
> strtouint64() is being used just to convert an input string to decimal
> unsigned value but what if we want it to be used for hexadecimal
> values or may be some other values, in that case it can't be used.
It's a lot slower if the base is variable, because the compiler cannot
replace the division by shifts.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2019-10-04 15:30:21 | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-10-04 14:51:07 | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |