Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Date: 2016-05-24 04:28:40
Message-ID: 2644.1464064120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 24 May 2016 at 00:00, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Did you consider the use of simple_list.c instead of introducing a new
>> mimic as PGcommandQueueEntry? It would be cool avoiding adding new
>> list emulations on frontends.

> I'd have to extend simple_list to add a generic object version, like

> struct my_list_elem
> {
> PG_SIMPLE_LIST_ATTRS;
> mytype mycol;
> myothertype myothercol;
> }

> Objections?

That doesn't look exactly "generic".

> I could add a void* version that's a simple clone of the string version,
> but having to malloc both a list cell and its contents separately is
> annoying.

I'd be okay with a void* version, but I'm not sure about this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 04:29:22 Re: LSN as a recovery target
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-05-24 04:02:15 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq