From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] pg_stat_statements and extended query protocol |
Date: | 2023-03-31 18:06:46 |
Message-ID: | EF29FF61-B68A-4E1C-9572-2AF681A33C8D@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> So... The idea here is to set a custom fetch size so as the number of
> calls can be deterministic in the tests, still more than 1 for the
> tests we'd have. And your point is that libpq enforces always 0 when
> sending the EXECUTE message causing it to always return all the rows
> for any caller of PQsendQueryGuts().
That is correct.
> The extended protocol allows that, so you would like a libpq API to
> have more control of what we send with EXECUTE:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-overview.html#PROTOCOL-QUERY-CONCEPTS
> The extended query protocol would require multiple 'E' messages, but
> we would not need multiple describe or bind messages, meaning that
> this cannot just be an extra flavor PQsendQueryParams(). Am I gettig
> that right?
Correct, there will need to be separate APIs for Parse/Bind, Execute
and Close of a Portal.
> The correct API design seems tricky, to say the least.
> Perhaps requiring this much extra work in libpq for the purpose of
> having some tests in this thread is not a brilliant idea.. Or perhaps
> we could just do it and have something a-la-JDBC with two routines?
> That would be one libpq routine for describe/bind and one for execute
> where the limit can be given by the caller in the latter case, similar
> to sendDescribeStatement() and sendExecute() in
> QueryExecutorImpl.java.
I am not too clear on your point here. ISTM you are suggesting adding
new libpq APis similar to JDBC, which is what I am also suggesting.
Did I understand correctly?
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-03-31 19:09:21 | Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often |
Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-03-31 17:59:44 | Re: [PATCH] Add `verify-system` sslmode to use system CA pool for server cert |