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
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 |