| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Goran Thyni <goran(at)kirra(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Speed or lack thereof |
| Date: | 1999-01-24 22:26:45 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.05.9901241826400.5725-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
BUGS
The alloca() function is machine dependent; its use is discouraged.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Goran Thyni wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't think we can or should stop using malloc(), but we can
> > ask it for large blocks and do our own allocations inside those
> > blocks --- was that what you meant?
>
> I will just jump in with a small idea.
> The Gnome crowd is investigating using alloca instead of malloc/free
> where applicable. It is a huge save in CPU cycles where it can be used.
>
> regards,
> --
> -----------------
> Gran Thyni
> This is Penguin Country. On a quiet night you can hear Windows NT
> reboot!
>
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Goran Thyni | 1999-01-24 22:59:29 | alloca (was: Postgres Speed or lack thereof) |
| Previous Message | Goran Thyni | 1999-01-24 22:09:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Speed or lack thereof |