On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I'm starting to look at this patch now. I think we could drop the >>> PQgetRowData() API: it complicates matters for little gain that I can >>> see. The argument for it was to avoid the cost of creating a PGresult >>> per row, but we're already going to pay the cost of creating a >>> PGresult in order to return the PGRES_SINGLE_TUPLE status. > >> No. Please look again, it is supposed to be called instead of PGgetResult(). > > Mm. I still think we should drop it, because it's still a dangerous API > that's not necessary for the principal benefit of this feature.
Yes, it is a secondary feature, but it fits the needs of the actual target audience of the single-row feature - various high-level wrappers of libpq. Also it is needed for high-performance situations, where the single-row-mode fits well even for C clients, except the advantage is negated by new malloc-per-row overhead. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers