From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matt Kelly <mkellycs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes. |
Date: | 2016-01-28 04:19:02 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=dJoctBsgSJ3n9MJM5X-2gmGxKpT5g-aAPE9NQJPm8mmw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> Looks pretty good. You seem to have added a blank line at the end of
> postgres_fdw.c, which should be stripped back out.
>
Done.
>
> > I'm not too keen on having *no* new regression tests, but defer to your
> > judgement.
>
> So... I'm not *opposed* to regression tests. I just don't see a
> reasonable way to write one. If you've got an idea, I'm all ears.
>
The possible tests might be:
- creating a server/table with fetch_size set
- altering an existing server/table to have fetch_size set
- verifying that the value exists in pg_foreign_server.srvoptions and
pg_foreign_table.ftoptions.
- attempting to set fetch_size to a non-integer value
None of which are very interesting, and none of which actually test what
fetch_size was actually used.
But I'm happy to add any of those that seem worthwhile.
> > Still not sure what you mean by remote execution options. But it might be
> > simpler now that the patch is closer to your expectations.
>
> I'm talking about the documentation portion of the patch, which
> regrettably seems to have disappeared between v2 and v3.
>
Ah, didn't realize you were speaking about the documentation, and since
that section was new, I wasn't familiar with the name. Moved.
...and not sure why the doc change didn't make it into the last patch, but
it's in this one.
I also moved the paragraph starting "When using the extensions option, *it
is the user's responsibility* that..." such that it is in the same
varlistentry as "extensions", though maybe that change should be delegated
to the patch that created the extensions option.
Enjoy.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v4.Make-fetch_size-settable-per-server-and-table.patch | text/x-patch | 7.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-01-28 04:24:17 | Re: WAL Re-Writes |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2016-01-28 04:16:35 | Re: Fwd: Core dump with nested CREATE TEMP TABLE |