From: Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
  pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Make printtup a bit faster
In-Reply-To: <87v7zihaf1.fsf@163.com> (Andy Fan's message of "Fri, 30 Aug 2024
	13:00:50 +0800")
References: <87wmjzfz0h.fsf@163.com>
	<CAApHDvrBNA-QRsbn-SJyRAsywjHCNenfcbi14c3O3c7=OimQ8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<3601908.1724945588@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAApHDvoE1EiHeQaHKh+NnB8GqhSVDUTjkHovTcXzp0W-d0yK0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<87v7zihaf1.fsf@163.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 03:18:23 +0000
Message-ID: <878qwaaglc.fsf@163.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/878qwaaglc.fsf%40163.com>
Precedence: bulk

Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com> writes:

> The attached is PoC of this idea, not matter which method are adopted
> (rewrite all the outfunction or a optional print function), I think the
> benefit will be similar. In the blew test case, it shows us 10%+
> improvements. (0.134ms vs 0.110ms)

After working on more {type}_print functions, I'm thinking it is pretty
like the 3rd IO function which shows some confused maintainence
effort. so I agree refactoring the existing out function is a better
idea. I'd like to work on _print function body first for easy review and
testing. after all, if some common issues exists in these changes,
it is better to know that before we working on the 700+ out functions.

-- 
Best Regards
Andy Fan