Re: ECPG FETCH readahead - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: ECPG FETCH readahead
Date
Msg-id 20120407155042.GB11987@tornado.leadboat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ECPG FETCH readahead  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: ECPG FETCH readahead  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 01:20:08PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:48:07AM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> > Attached is the new core feature patch. Summary of changes:
> > ...
> > I also refreshed the second patch that drives all cursors with the new
> > ...
> 
> I'm slightly confused here. It seems Zoltan added a second patch *after* Noah
> marked this patch as ready for committer. That second patch seems to apply
> cleanly after the first one got applied. Now, which one was reviewed and is
> considered ready for commit? The first one? Or both? 

Both.  The second patch appeared after my first review, based on a comment in
that review.  I looked at it during my re-review before marking the overall
project Ready for Committer.

I do call your attention to a question I raised in my second review: if a
program contains "DECLARE foo READAHEAD 5 CURSOR FOR ..." and the user runs
the program with ECPGFETCHSZ=10 in the environment, should that cursor use a
readahead window of 5 or of 10?  Original commentary:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20120329004323.GA17329@tornado.leadboat.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix PL/Python metadata when there is no result