| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixup some appendStringInfo and appendPQExpBuffer calls |
| Date: | 2021-06-02 14:55:49 |
| Message-ID: | 26903d83-974a-08d3-3b84-7707cd41c922@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.06.21 12:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> In the latest HEAD branch, I found some places were using
>> appendStringInfo/appendPQExpBuffer() when they could have been using
>> appendStringInfoString/ appendPQExpBufferStr() instead. I think we'd better
>> fix these places in case other developers will use these codes as a reference,
>> though, it seems will not bring noticeable performance gain.
>
> hmm why didn't we get warnings about the PENDING DETACH one? Maybe we
> need some decorator in PQExpBuffer.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing code there.
It's just like using printf() when you could use puts().
(I'm not against the proposed patch, just answering this question.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-06-02 15:07:30 | Re: Support for CREATE MODULE? |
| Previous Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-06-02 14:54:06 | Re: pg_stat_progress_create_index vs. parallel index builds |