Horton

Re: ECPG FETCH readahead

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

View thread
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: 2012-04-07T15:50:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix some "translator:" comments mangled by pgindent

  2. Make sure float4in/float8in accept all standard spellings of "infinity".

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