| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 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: | 2012-04-07 15:50:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20120407155042.GB11987@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 01:20:08PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:48:07AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> > Attached is the new core feature patch. Summary of changes:
> > ...
> > I also refreshed the second patch that drives all cursors with the new
> > ...
>
> I'm slightly confused here. It seems Zoltan added a second patch *after* Noah
> marked this patch as ready for committer. That second patch seems to apply
> cleanly after the first one got applied. Now, which one was reviewed and is
> considered ready for commit? The first one? Or both?
Both. The second patch appeared after my first review, based on a comment in
that review. I looked at it during my re-review before marking the overall
project Ready for Committer.
I do call your attention to a question I raised in my second review: if a
program contains "DECLARE foo READAHEAD 5 CURSOR FOR ..." and the user runs
the program with ECPGFETCHSZ=10 in the environment, should that cursor use a
readahead window of 5 or of 10? Original commentary:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20120329004323.GA17329@tornado.leadboat.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-07 17:27:12 | Re: Fix PL/Python metadata when there is no result |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-07 14:38:08 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |