On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Even though our testing seems to indicate that the memcmp() is >> basically free, I think it would be good to make the effort to avoid >> doing memcmp() and then strcoll() and then strncmp(). Seems like it >> shouldn't be too hard. > > Really? The tie-breaker for the benefit of locales like hu_HU uses > strcmp(), not memcmp(). It operates on the now-terminated copies of > strings. There is no reason to think that the strings must be the same > size for that strcmp(). I'd rather only do the new opportunistic > "memcmp() == 0" thing when len1 == len2. And I wouldn't like to have > to also figure out that it's safe to use the earlier result, because > as it happens len1 == len2, or any other such trickery.
OK, good point. So committed as-is, then, except that I rewrote the comments, which I felt were excessively long for the amount of code. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
