Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > >dbmail 2.0+dbmysql: 128 > >2.0+dbmysql+icfetch_speedup: 184 > >2.0+dbmysql+icfetch_speedup+db_header_speedup: 193
> I'm still very skeptical of making changes to is_fetch in the 2.0.x > branch. I'm all for putting these in 2.1. Anyone else have any > thoughts on the invasiveness of these patches and adding them to 2.0? Well, I tried to make the invasiveness as little as possible; and there is a check that falls back to the old behavior in case of anything unexpected. So I feel this code could be for 2.0.x, but of course let's wait for independent review. For 2.1 I'm planning a bigger change, although I'm not yet sure it will work out in the current code framework. I also have an idea for a SEARCH speedup in 2.1. Yours, Mikhail Ramendik
