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
