On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Jim, can you re-review this?
> I'm not Jim, but I have a question: what's the motivation for the
> Fortran-order traversal of the result (down rows before across columns)?
> It seems less than intuitive to do it that way.  Perhaps there's a good
> reason, but I do not see any defense of this choice in the thread.

If I am understanding you correctly, it does work the way you find
intuitive: all results from the first row are executed before any in the
second row, so


will execute the queries in order: a, b, c, d as is shown in the changes to
the sgml and the test cases.

Did you get the impression of Fortran-ordering from the phrase
"top-to-bottom, left-to-right order" in the sgml patch? If so, would
calling it "rows first" or something else be more clear?

Or am I misunderstanding you and you find the order a, c, b, d more

I also note that the patch seems to be missing resetting gexec_flag
> in some error exit paths, possibly allowing the \gexec to be applied
> to the next query unexpectedly.  It should clear that in all the same
> places where gfname or gset_prefix get cleared.

Will do!

I'm only seeing one place where those two vars are deallocated and nulled,
and that's at the tail end of SendQuery. Were you expecting more than just

Reply via email to