On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:14:28AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > That'd be considerably slower, so I'm *strongly* against that. These > conversion routines are *really* hot in a number of workloads, > e.g. bulk-loading with COPY. Check e.g. > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20171208214437.qgn6zdltyq5hmjpk%40alap3.anarazel.de
Thanks for the link. That makes sense! So stacking more function calls could also be an issue. Even if using static inline for the inner wrapper? That may sound like a stupid question but you have likely more experience than me regarding that with profiling. > I doubt it - it's not of that long-standing vintage (23a27b039d9, > 2016-03-12), and if so they are very likely to use base 10. We shouldn't > keep some barely tested function around, just for the hypothetical > scenario that some extension uses it. Especially if that function is > considerably slower than the potential replacement. Okay, I won't fight hard on that either. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
