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: | 2012-06-16 16:58:26 |
Message-ID: | CACMqXC+EJ7BfCDZpKbBYLWMXLUkXfkDuR9Nc0r7gFM5KgMR1hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I guess this raises the question of whether we ought to revert the
> row-callback patch entirely and support only this approach. IMO
> it is (barely) not too late to do that for 9.2, if we want to.
> If we don't want to, then this is just another new feature and
> should be considered for 9.3.
I think row-callback is dangerous API that does not solve any
important problems.
But I do like the 2-phase processing the rowproc patch introduced
and having a way to bypass unnecessary malloc()+copy.
So my preference would be to simply remove the callback API
but keep the processing and provide PQgetRowData() instead.
Although the win that it brings is significantly smaller thanks
to single-row PQgetResult(). So if it does not sound interesting
to others, it can be dropped. Because the single-row processing
is the important feature we need, rest is extra.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-16 17:04:53 | Re: REVIEW: Optimize referential integrity checks (todo item) |
Previous Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2012-06-16 16:25:12 | Re: libpq compression |