Re: [HACKERS] libpq

Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> If you think applications may like to keep buffered 100k of data, isn't
> that an argument for the PGobject interface instead of the PGresult
> interface?

How so?  I haven't actually figured out what you think PGobject will do
differently from PGresult.  Given the considerations I mentioned before,
I think PGobject *is* a PGresult; it has to have all the same
functionality, including carrying a tuple descriptor and a query
status (+ error message if needed).

> This seems too much responsibility to press onto libpq, but if the user
> has control over destruction of PQobjects they can buffer what they
> want, how they want, when they want.

The app has always had control over when to destroy PGresults, too.
I still don't see the difference...
        regards, tom lane