Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes: > On 09/12/2017 03:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So the conclusion at the end of the last commitfest was that this patch >> should be marked Returned With Feedback, and no new work appears to have >> been done on it since then. Why is it in this fest at all? There >> certainly doesn't seem to be any reason to review it again.
> I'm not sure how to read the history of the CF entry. Could it > have rolled over to 2017-09 by default if its status was simply > never changed to Returned with Feedback as intended in the last > one? The history doesn't seem to show anything since 2017-03-19. Maybe, or whoever was closing out the last CF didn't notice Andres' recommendation to mark it RWF. > I would still advocate for a fast-callback/slow-callback distinction, > as in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59813946.40508%40anastigmatix.net > if that does not seem overcomplicated to more experienced hands. I did not see any reason given in the thread why we should need that. If you want to accumulate tuples ten at a time before you do something with them, you can do that now, by calling ExecutorRun with count=10. (plpgsql does something much like that IIRC.) The only reason not to just use count=1 is that ExecutorRun and ExecutePlan have accumulated assorted startup/shutdown cruft on the assumption that their runtime didn't particularly matter. It still doesn't look that awful, but it might be noticeable. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
