| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: psql and comments |
| Date: | 1999-10-07 16:54:12 |
| Message-ID: | 199910071654.MAA02332@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The question I have though is, is there a reason, besides efficiency, that
> > psql doesn't just send the comment to the backend with the query? The
> > backend does accept comments last time I checked. Perhaps someone will one
> > day write something that makes some use of those comments on the backend
> > (thus conflicting with the very definition of "comment", but maybe a
> > logger) and it would remove some load out of psql.
>
> Efficiency is all, along with (probably) the backend being unhappy
> getting *only* a comment and no query.
>
That is fixed now. External interfaces showed problems, as the perl
MySQL test showed.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-07 17:29:42 | Re: [HACKERS] union and LIMIT problem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-10-07 16:43:48 | Re: [HACKERS] psql and comments |