| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu(dot)garrigues(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2020-11-12 13:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20201112134043.GA19787@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(Adding previous reviewers to CC)
On 2020-Nov-03, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Given the caveats around blocking mode connections why not just require
> non-blocking mode, in a similar fashion to how synchronous functions are
> disallowed?
This is a very good question. Why indeed? Does anybody have a good
answer to this? If not, I propose we just require that non-blocking
mode is in use in order for batch mode to be used.
I've been doing a review pass over this patch and have an updated
version, which I intend to share later today (after I fix what appears
to be a misunderstanding in the "singlerow" test in testlibpqbatch.c)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-11-12 13:56:31 | Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-11-12 13:37:39 | Re: Allow matching whole DN from a client certificate |