Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com, shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage
Date: 2012-04-04 22:41:00
Message-ID: 11075.1333579260@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Given the lack of consensus around the suspension API, maybe the best
>> way to get the underlying libpq patch to a committable state is to take
>> it out --- that is, remove the "return zero" option for row processors.

> Agreed.

Done that way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-04-04 22:42:29 Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage
Previous Message Greg Stark 2012-04-04 22:30:51 Re: patch: improve SLRU replacement algorithm