On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:59:40AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Etsuro Fujita
>> > <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> >> How about doing something similar for PQprepare/PQexecPrepared in
>> >> postgresExecForeignInsert, postgresExecForeignUpdate, and
>> >> postgresExecForeignDelete?
>> >
>> > Yes, I hesitated to touch those, but they are good candidates for this
>> > new interface, and actually it has proved not to be complicated to
>> > plug in the new routines in those code paths.
>> >
>> >> Also, how about doing that for PQexec in connection.c?
>> >
>> > Here I disagree, this is not adapted. All the PQexec calls are part of
>> > callbacks that are triggered on failures, and we rely on such a
>> > callback when issuing PQcancel. do_sql_command runs commands that take
>> > a short amount of time, so I think as well that it is fine as-is with
>> > PQexec.
>> Here is a new version. I just recalled that I forgot a PQclear() call
>> to clean up results.
> Robert, the deadline to fix this open item expired eleven days ago.  The
> thread had been seeing regular activity, but it has now been quiet for three
> days.  Do you have an updated plan for fixing this open item?

Note for Robert: pgfdw_get_result copycats PQexec by discarding all
PQresult received except the last one. I think that's fine for the
purposes of postgres_fdw, but perhaps you have a different opinion on
the matter.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to