Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Petr Jelinek |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | a7b64770-1346-c672-d328-50582d6b8e1f@2ndquadrant.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin (Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 08/03/2020 00:18, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 08:54, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:petr@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 29/02/2020 18:44, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >
> >
> > rebased and removed the catversion bump.
>
> Looked into this and it generally seems okay, but I do have one
> gripe here:
>
> > + tuple->values[i].data =
> palloc(len + 1);
> > + /* and data */
> > +
> > + pq_copymsgbytes(in,
> tuple->values[i].data, len);
> > + tuple->values[i].len = len;
> > + tuple->values[i].cursor = 0;
> > + tuple->values[i].maxlen = len;
> > + /* not strictly necessary
> but the docs say it is required */
> > + tuple->values[i].data[len]
> = '\0';
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + case 't': /* text
> formatted value */
> > + {
> > + tuple->changed[i] = true;
> > + int len = pq_getmsgint(in,
> 4); /* read length */
> >
> > /* and data */
> > - tuple->values[i] =
> palloc(len + 1);
> > - pq_copymsgbytes(in,
> tuple->values[i], len);
> > - tuple->values[i][len] = '\0';
> > + tuple->values[i].data =
> palloc(len + 1);
> > + pq_copymsgbytes(in,
> tuple->values[i].data, len);
> > + tuple->values[i].data[len]
> = '\0';
> > + tuple->values[i].len = len;
>
> The cursor should be set to 0 in the text formatted case too if this is
> how we chose to encode data.
>
> However I am not quite convinced I like the StringInfoData usage here.
> Why not just change the struct to include additional array of lengths
> rather than replacing the existing values array with StringInfoData
> array, that seems generally both simpler and should have smaller memory
> footprint too, no?
>
>
> Can you explain this a bit more? I don't really see a huge difference in
> memory usage.
> We still need length and the data copied into LogicalRepTupleData when
> sending the data in binary, no?
>
Yes but we don't need to have fixed sized array of 1600 elements that
contains maxlen and cursor positions of the StringInfoData struct which
we don't use for anything AFAICS.
--
Petr Jelinek
2ndQuadrant - PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise
https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
pgsql-hackers by date: