On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> 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. > > Absolutely no evidence has been presented that there's any useful > performance gain to be had there. Moreover, if there were, we could > probably work a bit harder at making PGresult creation cheaper, rather > than having to expose a dangerous API.
Ok, I'm more interested in primary feature, so no more objections from me. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
