On 17 June 2012 19:37, Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I prefer the description of Marko's API than the one we have now. >> >> Adopting one API in 9.2 and another in 9.3 would be fairly bad. >> Perhaps we can have both? > > I see no reason the keep the (public) callback API around, > except if we don't bother to remove it now.
OK by me. >> Can we see a performance test? "Add a row processor API to libpq for >> better handling of large result sets". So idea is we do this many, >> many times so we need to double check the extra overhead is not a >> problem in cases where the dumping overhead is significant. ... > I did benchmark it, and it seems there are column-size > + column-count patterns where new way is faster, > and some patterns where old way is faster. But the > difference did not raise above test noise so I concluded > it is insignificant and the malloc+copy avoidance is worth it. As long as we've checked that's fine. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
