yes
Joe
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On January 16, 2014 2:32:55 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/07/2013 05:50 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 05:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier >>
mailto:michael.paqu.
On 12/07/2013 05:50 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 05:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
>> mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
IMHO is more elegant create a procedure to encapsulate the code
to avoid redundan
On 12/7/13 7:50 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
On 12/07/2013 05:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
>On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
>mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>IMHO is more elegant create a procedure to encapsulate the code
>>>to avoid redundancy.
>>Yep, per
Joe Conway writes:
> I don't think it makes sense to create a new function in dblink either
> -- we're only talking about two lines of added redundancy which is
> less lines of code than a new function would add.
Indeed, and I think the claim that such a function "encapsulates" anything
useful is
> On 2013/12/08, at 10:50, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>> On 12/07/2013 05:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
>> mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
IMHO is more elegant c
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <
fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier <
michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMHO is more elegant create a procedure to encapsulate the code to
avoid
> > > redundancy.
> > Yep, perha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/2013 05:41 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
> mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO is more elegant create a procedure to encapsulate the code
>>> to avoid redundancy
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> >
> > IMHO is more elegant create a procedure to encapsulate the code to avoid
> > redundancy.
> Yep, perhaps something like PQsetClientEncodingIfDifferent or similar
> would make sense.
>
Well I think at this first moment we can just crea
All,
I tested out Joe's original patch, and it does eliminate the 8%
performance regression.
Will try the new one.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://ww
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/05/2013 07:05 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>> > On 12/05/2013 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> I seem to remember t
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/05/2013 07:05 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On 12/05/2013 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I seem to remember that at some point we realized that the
> >> encoding ID assignments are part of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/2013 07:05 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I seem to remember that at some point we realized that the
>> encoding ID assignments are part of libpq's ABI and so can't
>> practically be changed ever, so the abo
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2013 07:16 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> > Hi Joe, how are you?
>
> Hi Fabrizio -- great to hear from you! I'm well.
>
:-)
> > Well, when Tom sent this email I was reviewing your patch and the
> > main suggestion is about use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/2013 07:16 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> Hi Joe, how are you?
Hi Fabrizio -- great to hear from you! I'm well.
> Well, when Tom sent this email I was reviewing your patch and the
> main suggestion is about use of 'pg_encoding_to_char'
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/05/2013 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I seem to remember that at some point we realized that the encoding
> > ID assignments are part of libpq's ABI and so can't practically be
> > change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/05/2013 06:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I seem to remember that at some point we realized that the encoding
> ID assignments are part of libpq's ABI and so can't practically be
> changed ever, so the above may be moot. Even so, I think it's a
> bad
Joe Conway writes:
> Apparently setting client encoding is an expensive operation.
Yeah, it requires sending a command to the remote end. I'm not
sure if it'd be a good idea for PQsetClientEncoding to try to
skip the operation when the client encoding is already the
right thing. The given name
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was recently approached by someone with a dblink performance
regression, going back to somewhere between 8.3 (good) and 8.4 (bad).
They were measuring ~8% degradation in dblink connection speed. I was
able to replicate on my own hardware with the fol
18 matches
Mail list logo
