Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZcR9Q9hJ8GedFSCd@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 02:24:45PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > I think the code is just very confusing - there actually *is* verification of > the encoding, it just happens at a different, earlier, layer, namely in > copyfromparse.c: CopyConvertBuf() which says: > /* > * If the file and server encoding are the same, no encoding conversion is > * required. However, we still need to verify that the input is valid for > * the encoding. > */ > > And does indeed verify that. This has been switched by Heikki in f82de5c46bdf, in 2021, that has removed pg_database_encoding_max_length() in the COPY FROM case. (Adding him now in CC, in case he has any comments). > One unfortunate issue: We don't have any tests verifying that COPY FROM > catches encoding issues. Oops. Anyway, I was looking at the copyto.c code because I need to get something on this thread to be able to do something about the pluggable APIs in COPY, and echoing with what you mentioned upthread, what we only need to do is to set need_transcoding only when the client and the server encodings are not the same? Am I missing something? Runtime gets much better in average, around 1260ms on HEAD vs 1023ms with the attached for the example of upthread on a single process. Some profile data from CopyOneRowTo(), if relevant: * HEAD: - 82.78% 10.96% postgres postgres [.] CopyOneRowTo - 71.82% CopyOneRowTo + 30.87% OutputFunctionCall - 13.21% CopyAttributeOutText pg_server_to_any - 9.48% appendBinaryStringInfo 4.93% enlargeStringInfo 3.33% 0xffffa4e1e234 + 3.20% CopySendEndOfRow 2.66% 0xffffa4e1e214 1.02% pgstat_progress_update_param 0.86% memcpy@plt 0.74% 0xffffa4e1cba4 0.72% MemoryContextReset 0.72% 0xffffa4e1cba8 0.59% enlargeStringInfo 0.55% 0xffffa4e1cb40 0.54% 0xffffa4e1cb74 0.52% 0xffffa4e1cb8c + 10.96% _start * patch: - 80.82% 12.25% postgres postgres [.] CopyOneRowTo - 68.57% CopyOneRowTo + 36.55% OutputFunctionCall 11.44% CopyAttributeOutText + 8.87% appendBinaryStringInfo + 3.79% CopySendEndOfRow 1.01% pgstat_progress_update_param 0.79% int2out 0.66% MemoryContextReset 0.63% 0xffffaa624ba8 0.60% memcpy@plt 0.60% enlargeStringInfo 0.53% 0xffffaa624ba4 + 12.25% _start That's a performance-only change, but there may be a good argument for backpatching something, perhaps? -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: