On Tuesday, July 24, 2012, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> So if we give only PQgetResult() in 9.2, I do not see that we
>>> are locked out from any interesting optimizations.
>> Well, you are locked out of having PQgetResult reuse the conn's result
>> since that would then introduce potentially breaking changes to user
> You can specify special flags to PQsend or have special PQgetResultWeird()
> calls to get PGresults with unusual behavior. Like I did with
> I see no reason here to reject PQgetResult() that returns normal PGresult.
Yeah -- I agree. So, given the scheduling, I think we should go with
non-PQgetRowData patch and reserve optimized path for 9.3.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-07-25 01:21:06|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6748: sequence value may be conflict in some cases|
|Previous:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2012-07-24 23:09:03|
|Subject: Re: [patch] libpq one-row-at-a-time API|