Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-07-27 17:31:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What happens if you force use of port/snprintf.c instead of glibc's
>> version?
> Even worse. 15900.014 ms.
Interesting. So as a separate optimization problem, we might consider
"try to put snprintf.c at least on a par with glibc". I'm kind of
surprised by this result really, since snprintf.c lacks a lot of the
bells and whistles that are in glibc.
regards, tom lane
