On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:06:16PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> FWIW, the tests I did to check this when initially working on it are
> in [1]. Justin, it would be good if you could verify you're making as
> bad as what's mentioned on that thread again.
Ouch. Thanks for the reference. Indeed it
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Did you check if our implementation of src/port/snprintf.c makes %*s
> much slower than %s or not? FWIW, I have just run a small test on my
> laptop, and running 100M calls of snprintf() with "%s" in a tight loop
> takes 2.7s, with "%*s" and a
On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:59:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> ..which should no longer be needed since it was a performance hack for
> specific
> platform snprintf, which are no longer used.
Did you check if our implementation of src/port/snprintf.c makes %*s
much slower than %s or not? FWIW,
ial case which avoided %*s format
strings..
..which should no longer be needed since it was a performance hack for specific
platform snprintf, which are no longer used.
See also:
4334639f4 Allow printf-style padding specifications in log_line_prefix.
96bf88d52 Always use our own versions of *pri
