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 CADK3HHKHdNX188Ey5FX0GednszqH77mNa9ihX0ed-QKX8SEnUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq  (Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu.garrigues@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 08:42, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Hi Dave,

On 2020-Nov-03, Dave Cramer wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:57, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2020-Nov-02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > > In v23 I've gone over docs; discovered that PQgetResults docs were
> > > missing the new values.  Added those.  No significant other changes yet.
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> What else does it need to get it in shape to apply?

I want to go over the code in depth to grok the design more fully.

It would definitely help if you (and others) could think about the API
being added: Does it fulfill the promises being made?  Does it offer the
guarantees that real-world apps want to have?  I'm not much of an
application writer myself -- particularly high-traffic apps that would
want to use this.  As a driver author I would welcome your insight in
these questions.


I'm sort of in the same boat as you. While I'm closer to the client. I don't personally write that much client code.

I'd really like to hear from the users here.


Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove pg_archivecleanup and pg_standby
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq compression