Subject: Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
References: <6e747f98-835f-2e05-cde5-86ee444a7140@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20201009184625.4hfgpcxzd6jfredb@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <a2da2fea-b15f-5a86-c0ab-836756d9c919@2ndquadrant.com>
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Message-ID: <d0840629-c875-a90b-e114-a4cdc91e2255@pgmasters.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:56:25 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a2da2fea-b15f-5a86-c0ab-836756d9c919@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d0840629-c875-a90b-e114-a4cdc91e2255%40pgmasters.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Peter,

On 12/30/20 9:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-10-09 20:46, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Is there really a good reason for forcing the client to issue
>> NextResult, Describe, Execute for each of the dynamic result sets? It's
>> not like there's really a case for allowing the clients to skip them,
>> right?  Why aren't we sending something more like
>>
>> S: CommandPartiallyComplete
>> S: RowDescription
>> S: DataRow...
>> S: CommandPartiallyComplete
>> S: RowDescription
>> S: DataRow...
>> ...
>> S: CommandComplete
>> C: Sync
> 
> I want to post my current patch, to keep this discussion moving.

CFBot reports that tests are failing, although the patch applies.

Also, you dropped all the driver authors from the thread. Not sure if 
that was intentional, but you might want to add them back if you need 
their input.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net