Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f071002062101m6894b7dek3ae3274d400a4f1e@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> wrote: > Thanks for testing it, with the attached patch your test case also > returns SELECT N. Thoughts: 1. Looks like you've falsified the last comment block in PortalRunMulti(). 2. I don't like the duplication of code in PortalRun() between the first and second branches of the switch statement. 3. You've falsified the comment preceding that code, too. 4. Is there any reason to use pg_strcasecmp() instead of plain old strcmp()? Someone who knows the overall structure of the code better than I do will have to comment on whether there are any code paths to worry about that do not go through PortalRun(). A general concern I have is that this what we're basically doing here is handling the most common case in ProcessQuery() and then installing fallback mechanisms to pick up any stragglers: but the fallback mechanisms only guarantee that we'll add a number to the command tag, not that it will be meaningful. Unfortunately, my limited imagination can't quite figure out in what cases we'll get a SELECT command tag back other than (1) plain old SELECT, (2) SELECT INTO, and (3) CTAS, so I'm not sure what to go test. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: