On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:59:12AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Have you looked at the examples? PQgetResult() is pretty good hint
that one resultset finished...
--
marko
