Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AFF189E83C; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:26:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [87.118.86.135] (helo=km31432.keymachine.de) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SHcxM-0005f0-S9; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:26:12 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [87.242.62.156]) by km31432.keymachine.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 540A1390022B; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F8450C7.7000707@cybertec.at> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:24:55 +0200 From: Boszormenyi Zoltan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Noah Misch , Michael Meskes , Robert Haas , PG Hackers , Heikki Linnakangas , Bruce Momjian Subject: Re: ECPG FETCH readahead References: <4F74409C.3050904@cybertec.at> <20120329170341.GA4142@tornado.leadboat.com> <4F74E6A7.8040204@cybertec.at> <20120407112008.GA2286@feivel.credativ.lan> <20120407155042.GB11987@tornado.leadboat.com> <20120408142501.GA21513@feivel.credativ.lan> <4F81BE55.1010904@cybertec.at> <20120408173859.GA4915@feivel.credativ.lan> <4F83E2B9.3030302@cybertec.at> <20120410143722.GC6129@tornado.leadboat.com> <20120410145501.GA11554@feivel.credativ.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120410145501.GA11554@feivel.credativ.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 87.118.86.135 (deferred) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201204/472 X-Sequence-Number: 206275 2012-04-10 16:55 keltez=C3=A9ssel, Michael Meskes =C3=ADrta: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:37:22AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: >>> Only a non-decorated cursor can be overridden, even if >>> a different default readahead window size is specified with >>> e.g. "ecpg -R 8". If ECPGFETCHSZ is not present, 8 will be used, >>> if ECPGFETCHSZ is present, its value will be used. ECPGopen() >>> will need an extra bool argument to distinguish this. >>> >>> Is this acceptable? Noah, Michael? >> Sounds perfect. > Fine by me. > > Michael OK. Next question: now that both patches are intended to be applied, should I send a unified single patch that contains the previous functiona= lity and the required fixes or a new one that only contains the last required = fixes? Thanks in advance, Zolt=C3=A1n B=C3=B6sz=C3=B6rm=C3=A9nyi --=20 ---------------------------------- Zolt=C3=A1n B=C3=B6sz=C3=B6rm=C3=A9nyi Cybertec Sch=C3=B6nig& Sch=C3=B6nig GmbH Gr=C3=B6hrm=C3=BChlgasse 26 A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de http://www.postgresql.at/