Re: [patch] libpq one-row-at-a-time API

From: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [patch] libpq one-row-at-a-time API
Date: 2012-07-16 15:32:58
Message-ID: CACMqXC+L8cBRSGV96+ZWVSui_TmPby5tUNV86tskUdquB+9GPQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I'm starting to look at this patch now. I think we could drop the
>>> PQgetRowData() API: it complicates matters for little gain that I can
>>> see. The argument for it was to avoid the cost of creating a PGresult
>>> per row, but we're already going to pay the cost of creating a
>>> PGresult in order to return the PGRES_SINGLE_TUPLE status.
>
>> No. Please look again, it is supposed to be called instead of PGgetResult().
>
> Mm. I still think we should drop it, because it's still a dangerous API
> that's not necessary for the principal benefit of this feature.

Yes, it is a secondary feature, but it fits the needs of the actual target
audience of the single-row feature - various high-level wrappers of libpq.

Also it is needed for high-performance situations, where the
single-row-mode fits well even for C clients, except the
advantage is negated by new malloc-per-row overhead.

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-07-16 15:43:04 Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-07-16 15:24:37 Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes