Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> What I'm currently thinking we should do is just use the old method
>> for async queries, and only optimize the synchronous case.

> Ok, I agree with you except for performance issue. I give up to use
> row processor for async query with dblink_is_busy called.

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable idea.

Given the lack of consensus around the suspension API, maybe the best
way to get the underlying libpq patch to a committable state is to take
it out --- that is, remove the "return zero" option for row processors.
Since we don't have a test case for it in dblink, it's hard to escape
the feeling that we may be expending a lot of effort for something that
nobody really wants, and/or misdesigning it for lack of a concrete use
case. Is anybody going to be really unhappy if that part of the patch
gets left behind?

regards, tom lane