Re: small pg_dump code cleanup
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: small pg_dump code cleanup |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOW5sYZtaR=QP4Ygc_gDvUrFwas1xmZR4yQbNCuYjHrcd066yA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: small pg_dump code cleanup (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 12:37 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
What about collectXXX() to match similar functions in pg_dump.c (e.g.,
collectRoleNames(), collectComments(), collectSecLabels())?
sgtm.
> (2) These functions malloc() a single ntups * sizeof(struct) allocation and
> then index into it to fill-in each struct before entering it into the hash
> table. It might be more straightforward to just malloc each individual
> struct.
That'd increase the number of allocations quite significantly, but I'd be
surprised if that was noticeable outside of extreme scenarios. At the
moment, I'm inclined to leave these as-is for this reason and because I
doubt it'd result in much cleanup, but I'll yield to the majority opinion
here.
As you say, I'd be surprised if the performance difference is noticeable. Personally I don't think the marginal performance win justifies the hit to readability, but I don't feel strongly about it.
Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: