-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Bruce Momjian
Sent: Sat 10/1/2005 1:16 AM
To: Jim C. Nasby
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Tony Caduto; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Found small issue with OUT params
> fix pgxs for spaces in file names
I poste
On 9/30/05, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:53:22AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >So you might notice little performance hit bringing back a million rows,
> > >and most of these type of single OUT params functions only return one
> > >row/value anyway
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:53:22AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >So you might notice little performance hit bringing back a million rows,
> > >and most of these type of single OUT params functions only return one
> > >row/value anyway.
> > >There would be zero per
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:53:22AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >So you might notice little performance hit bringing back a million rows,
> >and most of these type of single OUT params functions only return one
> >row/value anyway.
> >There would be zero perceivable difference in performan
On Friday 30 September 2005 11:49, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:20:34AM -0500, Tony Caduto wrote:
> > Tom,
> > I hardly think the overhead would be significant on modern processors, I
> > don't think the majority of users are running on Pentium 90s.( I am
> > assuming
So you might notice little performance hit bringing back a million rows,
and most of these type of single OUT params functions only return one
row/value anyway.
There would be zero perceivable difference in performance regardless of
the extra overhead for a single value/row.
Sounds like we n
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:20:34AM -0500, Tony Caduto wrote:
Tom,
I hardly think the overhead would be significant on modern processors, I
don't think the majority of users are running on Pentium 90s.( I am
assuming you mean a performance overhead)
Um,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:20:34AM -0500, Tony Caduto wrote:
> Tom,
> I hardly think the overhead would be significant on modern processors, I
> don't think the majority of users are running on Pentium 90s.( I am
> assuming you mean a performance overhead)
Um, please read the documention. Return
Tom Lane wrote:
Mike Rylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Using that logic, a functions with one OUT param would be the same as
a function returning a rowtype with only one column,
But it's not (and no, I don't want to make it so, because the overhead
for the useless record result wou
Mike Rylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Using that logic, a functions with one OUT param would be the same as
> a function returning a rowtype with only one column,
But it's not (and no, I don't want to make it so, because the overhead
for the useless record result would be significant).
On 9/29/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think even if a
> > single param is declared as OUT it should return the name of the OUT param?
>
> Not really, because "create function foo (in x int, o
Tom Lane wrote:
Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think even if a
single param is declared as OUT it should return the name of the OUT param?
Not really, because "create function foo (in x int, out y float)" is
supposed to have
Tom Lane wrote:
> Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think even if a
> > single param is declared as OUT it should return the name of the OUT param?
>
> Not really, because "create function foo (in x int, out y float)" is
> supposed to
Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think even if a
> single param is declared as OUT it should return the name of the OUT param?
Not really, because "create function foo (in x int, out y float)" is
supposed to have the same external behav
Tom Lane wrote:
Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If I call it like this:
select * from FIND_USER_SOCKET_BYNAME('juser');
I would expect to get back 1 value with the name of the OUT param
(OUT_SOCKET_ADDRESS).
However it comes back with the name of the function
This is intenti
Tony Caduto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I call it like this:
> select * from FIND_USER_SOCKET_BYNAME('juser');
> I would expect to get back 1 value with the name of the OUT param
> (OUT_SOCKET_ADDRESS).
> However it comes back with the name of the function
This is intentional, for compatibi
16 matches
Mail list logo
