Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 7:50 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1...@163.com> wrote: >> Apart from the above issue, what do you think about that we are using a >> 'SELECT pg_catalog.pg_refresh_snapshot()' to let the remote do the >> refresh_snapshot VS 'a new message type for this'? There are lots of >> things happen in the 'SELECT' way like 'a extra network communication', >> 'a complete parser-planner-executor workflow.' With a new message type >> for this, we can send the message character with the next query >> together. if so, can the two overheads removed? > > I think it might be a good idea to extend simple/extend query > protocols that way, but even if so, I would like to leave that for > future work, because even without that, I think this is still an > improvement, and I do not want to set the goal for the first cut too > high.
That's reasonable. > Having said that, if the next query uses simple query protocol, we can > avoid the extra communication by sending the two queries in a single > function call. I will do that in the next version. Good to know that. After reading the patch, the changes looks good to me except the name of ThereAre[No]OldLivePortals(), multiple negations can be somewhat confusing at times. Opinions may vary, However. I point this out just in case this is done by mistake when you were refactoring the code. If you think the current one is better, I'm totoally OK with it. -- Best Regards Andy Fan
