Horton

Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>, greg@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, mmoncure@gmail.com, shigeru.hanada@gmail.com
Date: 2012-04-04T19:17:37Z
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 COPY FROM for null marker strings that correspond to invalid encoding.

  2. Improve labeling of pg_test_fsync open_sync test output.

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>> What I'm currently thinking we should do is just use the old method
>> for async queries, and only optimize the synchronous case.

> Ok, I agree with you except for performance issue. I give up to use
> row processor for async query with dblink_is_busy called.

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable idea.


Given the lack of consensus around the suspension API, maybe the best
way to get the underlying libpq patch to a committable state is to take
it out --- that is, remove the "return zero" option for row processors.
Since we don't have a test case for it in dblink, it's hard to escape
the feeling that we may be expending a lot of effort for something that
nobody really wants, and/or misdesigning it for lack of a concrete use
case.  Is anybody going to be really unhappy if that part of the patch
gets left behind?

			regards, tom lane