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: | 2012-07-16 15:59:21 |
Message-ID: | CACMqXCKjpvqbWGG8oFcCq4k41gRj_Mxx-VZ0L98pgOiCRu4Y6A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Mm. I still think we should drop it, because it's still a dangerous API
>>> that's not necessary for the principal benefit of this feature.
>
>> Yes, it is a secondary feature, but it fits the needs of the actual target
>> audience of the single-row feature - various high-level wrappers of libpq.
>
>> Also it is needed for high-performance situations, where the
>> single-row-mode fits well even for C clients, except the
>> advantage is negated by new malloc-per-row overhead.
>
> Absolutely no evidence has been presented that there's any useful
> performance gain to be had there. Moreover, if there were, we could
> probably work a bit harder at making PGresult creation cheaper, rather
> than having to expose a dangerous API.
Ok, I'm more interested in primary feature,
so no more objections from me.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-16 16:04:49 | Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-07-16 15:58:59 | Re: [PERFORM] DELETE vs TRUNCATE explanation |