Re: [HACKERS] Kerberos 5 breakage.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Kerberos 5 breakage. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20433.895698911@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Kerberos 5 breakage. ("Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> writes: > Also, allowing writes of single characters is bad; you incur a context > switch each write. The client and server should be writing things into > largish buffers and writing those instead of doing small writes. > The existence of the following scare me... > pqPutShort(int integer, FILE *f) > pqPutLong(int integer, FILE *f) > [etc] Look again. Those functions use <stdio.h>, which provides buffering. They don't need to do it themselves. It might be good to put a layer underneath these functions to allow insertion of encryption or something like that, but efficiency is not a valid argument for doing it. On the client side, in the recent libpq rewrite I took out usage of stdio and did my own buffering instead, but that was just so that I could control when and how the client would block for input. I don't think it bought any speedup. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: