Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
> > Until we fix that (maybe for 7.2, maybe not) your existing hack is
> > probably pretty reasonable. You could save some cycles by avoiding
> > conversion to text, though --- instead return an opaque datum that is
> > pointer-to-tuple-slot and let the dblink_tok function extract fields
> > from the tuple. Look at SQL function support and the FieldSelect
> > expression node type for inspiration.
> >
>
> I changed the dblink() function to return a pointer instead of concatenated
> text, and dblink_tok() to use the pointer. FWIW, a query on a small (85
> tuples) remote (a second PC on a 100baseT subnet) table takes about 34
> milliseconds (based on show_query_stats) versus about 4 milliseconds when
> run locally. It actually takes a bit longer (~65 milliseconds) when run
> against a second database on the same PC. The original text parsing version
> was about 25% slower.
>
> Although shifting from text parsing to pointer passing is more efficient, I
> have one more question regarding this -- for now ;) -- is there any way to
> check the pointer passed to dblink_tok() to be sure it came from dblink()?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Joe
>
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
