| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Anton Kirilov <antonvkirilov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq |
| Date: | 2024-01-15 07:50:07 |
| Message-ID: | ZaTjr6qpw71vS00O@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:40:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hence, as a whole, wouldn't it be more consistent if the new
> PQsendPipelineSync() and the existing PQpipelineSync() call an
> internal static routine (PQPipelineSyncInternal?) that can switch
> between both modes? Let's just make the extra argument a boolean.
Yeah, I'll go with that after a second look. Attached is what I am
finishing with, and I have reproduced some numbers with the pgbench
metacommand mentioned upthread, which is reeeaaally nice.
I have also made a few edits to the tests.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v6-0001-Add-PQsendPipelineSync-to-libpq.patch | text/x-diff | 11.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2024-01-15 07:50:59 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2024-01-15 07:49:44 | Re: pgbnech: allow to cancel queries during benchmark |