Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol
Date
Msg-id 34632858-a067-4ae5-bd49-6531e5ed9282@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 01.02.22 15:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12.01.22 11:20, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>> Since you mentioned that this patch depends on the SHOW_ALL_RESULTS 
>> psql patch
>> which is still being worked on, I'm not expecting much activity here 
>> until the
>> prerequirements are done.  It also seems better to mark this patch as 
>> Waiting
>> on Author as further reviews are probably not really needed for now.
> 
> Well, a review on the general architecture and approach would have been 
> useful.  But I understand that without the psql work, it's difficult for 
> a reviewer to even get started on this patch.  It's also similarly 
> difficult for me to keep updating it.  So I'll set it to Returned with 
> feedback for now and take it off the table.  I want to get back to it 
> when the prerequisites are more settled.

Now that the psql support for multiple result sets exists, I want to 
revive this patch.  It's the same as the last posted version, except now 
it doesn't require any psql changes or any weird test modifications anymore.

(Old news: This patch allows declaring a cursor WITH RETURN in a 
procedure to make the cursor's data be returned as a result of the CALL 
invocation.  The procedure needs to be declared with the DYNAMIC RESULT 
SETS attribute.)

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: archive modules
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum