Re: Avoid overhead with fprintf related functions

Em sex., 9 de set. de 2022 às 18:53, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:

> Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Em sex., 9 de set. de 2022 às 13:20, Nathan Bossart <
> > nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
> >> I agree with David [0]. But if you can demonstrate a performance gain,
> >> perhaps it's worth considering a subset of these changes in hot paths.
>
> > head:
> > Time: 418,210 ms
> > Time: 419,588 ms
> > Time: 424,713 ms
>
> > fprintf patch:
> > Time: 416,919 ms
> > Time: 416,246 ms
> > Time: 416,237 ms
>
> That is most certainly not enough gain to justify a large amount
> of code churn. In fact, given that this is probably pretty
> platform-dependent and you've checked only one platform, I don't
> think I'd call this a sufficient case for even a one-line change.
>
Of course, base these changes not on performance gain, but on correct style
and increased security.
But out-vote is out-vote, case closed.

Regards,
Ranier Vilela