Re: ECPG FETCH readahead

From: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: ECPG FETCH readahead
Date: 2012-04-10 15:24:55
Message-ID: 4F8450C7.7000707@cybertec.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2012-04-10 16:55 keltezéssel, Michael Meskes írta:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:37:22AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> Only a non-decorated cursor can be overridden, even if
>>> a different default readahead window size is specified with
>>> e.g. "ecpg -R 8". If ECPGFETCHSZ is not present, 8 will be used,
>>> if ECPGFETCHSZ is present, its value will be used. ECPGopen()
>>> will need an extra bool argument to distinguish this.
>>>
>>> Is this acceptable? Noah, Michael?
>> Sounds perfect.
> Fine by me.
>
> Michael

OK. Next question: now that both patches are intended to be applied,
should I send a unified single patch that contains the previous functionality
and the required fixes or a new one that only contains the last required fixes?

Thanks in advance,
Zoltán Böszörményi

--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig& Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-04-10 15:25:05 Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-04-10 15:24:35 Re: Last gasp