Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Date
Msg-id CADK3HH+3K3q=pOWjShDPSP8vgKBZ=wP2tSCi1fSk7nXQvvCg1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  (Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu.garrigues@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  (Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu.garrigues@gmail.com>)
Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  (Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu.garrigues@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 09:21, Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu.garrigues@gmail.com> wrote:
Matthieu Garrigues

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:09 PM Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks> wrote:
>>
> There was a comment upthread a while back that people should look at the comments made in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180322.211148.187821341.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp by Horiguchi-San.
>
> From what I can tell this has not been addressed. The one big thing is the use of PQbatchProcessQueue vs just putting it in PQgetResult.
>
> The argument is that adding PQbatchProcessQueue is unnecessary and just adds another step. Looking at this, it seems like putting this inside PQgetResult would get my vote as it leaves the interface unchanged.
>

Ok. I'll merge PQbatchProcessQueue into PQgetResult. But just one
thing: I'll keep PQgetResult returning null between the result of two
batched query so the user
can know which result comes from which query.

Fair enough.

There may be other things in his comments that need to be addressed. That was the big one that stuck out for me.

Thanks for working on this!


Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Inconsistent Japanese name order in v13 contributors list
Next
From: Matthieu Garrigues
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq