| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: computing completion tag is expensive for pgbench -S -M prepared |
| Date: | 2018-06-07 18:20:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20180607182010.twtkvqcilsm6ghf3@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-06-07 11:40:48 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 7 June 2018 at 11:29, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> Do we actually need the completion tag at all? In most cases??
> >
> >
> > affected rows is taken from this value on protocol level
>
> I didn't mean we should remove the number of rows. Many things rely on that.
How do you mean it then? We can't really easily change how we return
that value on the protocol level, and the command tag is basically just
returned as a string in the protocol. If we were to design the protocol
today I'm sure we just would declare the rowcount and affected rowcounts
separate fields or something, but ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-07 18:21:04 | Re: computing completion tag is expensive for pgbench -S -M prepared |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-07 17:52:49 | Re: Transform for pl/perl |