Re: appendPQExpBufferVA vs appendStringInfoVA
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: appendPQExpBufferVA vs appendStringInfoVA |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZdguoOoaQ_iraZNYS7PyhLQvnBQ0PN3ky-BzRMoPWQWQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: appendPQExpBufferVA vs appendStringInfoVA (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes: >> Tom commited some changes to appendStringInfoVA a few weeks ago which >> allows it to return the required buffer size if the current buffer is not >> big enough. > >> On looking at appendPQExpBufferVA I'm thinking it would be nice if it could >> make use of the new pvsnprintf function to bring the same potential >> performance improvement in to there too. > > Uh ... it does contain pretty much the same algorithm now. We can't > simply use pvsnprintf there because exit-on-error is no good for > libpq's purposes, so unless we want to rethink that, a certain > amount of code duplication is unavoidable. But they both understand > about C99 vsnprintf semantics now. I have often found it frustrating that we have appendStringInfo* for the backend and appendPQExpBuffer* for the frontend. It'd be nice to have one API that could be used in both places, somehow. There seems to be a lot of interest (including on my part) in writing code that can be compiled in either environment. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: