On Friday, December 05, 2014 12:22:38 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Oh, that's what the PQgetLastQuery/PQgetNextQuery functions work! I
> didn't understand that before. I'd suggest renaming them to something
> like PQgetSentQuery() and PQgetResultQuery(). The first/last/next names
> made me think
On 12/05/2014 02:30 AM, Matt Newell wrote:
The explanation of PQgetFirstQuery makes it sound pretty hard to match
up the result with the query. You have to pay attention to PQisBusy.
PQgetFirstQuery should also be valid after
calling PQgetResult and then you don't have to worry about PQisBusy
>
> > The explanation of PQgetFirstQuery makes it sound pretty hard to match
> > up the result with the query. You have to pay attention to PQisBusy.
>
> PQgetFirstQuery should also be valid after
> calling PQgetResult and then you don't have to worry about PQisBusy, so I
> should probably change
On Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:39:02 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Adding the ability to set a user supplied pointer on the PGquery struct
> > might make it much easier for some frameworks, and other users might want
> > a callback, but I don't think either are required.
>
> I don't like exp
On 12/04/2014 09:11 PM, Matt Newell wrote:
With the API i am proposing, only 2 new functions (PQgetFirstQuery,
PQgetLastQuery) are required to be able to match each result to the query that
caused it. Another function, PQgetNextQuery allows iterating through the
pending queries, and PQgetQueryCo
On Thursday, December 04, 2014 04:30:27 PM Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Matt Newell wrote:
> > With the API i am proposing, only 2 new functions (PQgetFirstQuery,
> > PQgetLastQuery) are required to be able to match each result to the query
> > that caused it. Another f
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Matt Newell wrote:
> With the API i am proposing, only 2 new functions (PQgetFirstQuery,
> PQgetLastQuery) are required to be able to match each result to the query that
> caused it. Another function, PQgetNextQuery allows iterating through the
> pending queries, a
On Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:30:46 PM Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 05:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > A good API is crucial for this. It should make it easy to write an
> > application that does pipelining, and to handle all the error conditions
> > in a predictable way. I'd sugges
On 12/04/2014 05:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>
>
> A good API is crucial for this. It should make it easy to write an
> application that does pipelining, and to handle all the error conditions
> in a predictable way. I'd suggest that you write the documentation
> first, before writing any co
On 12/04/2014 03:11 AM, Matt Newell wrote:
The recent discussion about pipelining in the jodbc driver prompted me to look
at what it would take for libpq.
Great!
I have a proof of concept patch working. The results are even more promising
than I expected.
While it's true that many applicati
Hi,
The recent discussion about pipelining in the jodbc driver prompted me to look
at what it would take for libpq.
I have a proof of concept patch working. The results are even more promising
than I expected.
While it's true that many applications and frameworks won't easily benefit, it
am
11 matches
Mail list logo
