Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:56:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Second conclusion is that current dblink row-processor usage is broken
>>> when user uses multiple SELECTs in SQL as dblink uses plain PQexec().
>> Yeah. Perhaps we should tweak the row-processor callback API so that
>> it gets an explicit notification that "this is a new resultset".
>> Duplicating PQexec's behavior would then involve having the dblink row
>> processor throw away any existing tuplestore and start over when it
>> gets such a call.
>>
>> There's multiple ways to express that but the most convenient thing
>> from libpq's viewpoint, I think, is to have a callback that occurs
>> immediately after collecting a RowDescription message, before any
>> rows have arrived. So maybe we could express that as a callback
>> with valid "res" but "columns" set to NULL?
>>
>> A different approach would be to add a row counter to the arguments
>> provided to the row processor; then you'd know a new resultset had
>> started if you saw rowcounter == 0. This might have another advantage
>> of not requiring the row processor to count the rows for itself, which
>> I think many row processors would otherwise have to do.
> Try to imagine how final documentation will look like.
> Then imagine documentation for PGrecvRow() / PQgetRow().
What's your point, exactly? PGrecvRow() / PQgetRow() aren't going to
make that any better as currently defined, because there's noplace to
indicate "this is a new resultset" in those APIs either.
regards, tom lane
