| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2016-10-14 01:04:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1595f56c-f0ee-2135-a1cc-f9d3786f82a2@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/4/16 11:54 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + <para>
> + Much like asynchronous query mode, there is no performance disadvantage to
> + using batching and pipelining. It somewhat increased client application
> + complexity and extra caution is required to prevent client/server network
> + deadlocks, but can offer considerable performance improvements.
> + </para>
> I would reword that a bit "it increases client application complexity
> and extra caution is required to prevent client/server deadlocks but
> offers considerable performance improvements".
Unrelated, but another doc bug, on line 4647:
+ The batch API was introduced in PostgreSQL 9.6, but clients
using it can
That should read 10.0 (or just 10?)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-10-14 02:46:27 | Re: btree vacuum and suspended scans can deadlock |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2016-10-14 00:02:55 | Re: Typo in parallel.sqml |