From: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: ECPG FETCH readahead |
Date: | 2012-04-10 15:24:55 |
Message-ID: | 4F8450C7.7000707@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012-04-10 16:55 keltezéssel, Michael Meskes írta:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:37:22AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> Only a non-decorated cursor can be overridden, even if
>>> a different default readahead window size is specified with
>>> e.g. "ecpg -R 8". If ECPGFETCHSZ is not present, 8 will be used,
>>> if ECPGFETCHSZ is present, its value will be used. ECPGopen()
>>> will need an extra bool argument to distinguish this.
>>>
>>> Is this acceptable? Noah, Michael?
>> Sounds perfect.
> Fine by me.
>
> Michael
OK. Next question: now that both patches are intended to be applied,
should I send a unified single patch that contains the previous functionality
and the required fixes or a new one that only contains the last required fixes?
Thanks in advance,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig& Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-10 15:25:05 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-04-10 15:24:35 | Re: Last gasp |