From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cursors outside transactions |
Date: | 2003-03-19 04:36:22 |
Message-ID: | 200303190436.h2J4aNr11341@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net> writes:
> > On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 19:00, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >> ODBC(maybe JDBC also) has cross-transaction result sets
> >> (rather than cursors) since long by simply holding all
> >> results for a query at client side.
>
> > JDBC is running into problems with this. Large queries cause out of
> > memory exceptions.
>
> Cursors implemented as Neil suggests would cause out-of-disk exceptions.
> The limit is presumably further away than out-of-memory, but not any the
> less real. I'm concerned about this because, in my mind, one of the
> principal uses of cursors is to deal with too-huge-to-materialize result
> sets.
I don't see how you can class out of memory in the same likelyhood as
out of disk --- sure they are both real possible failures, but clearly
the latter is more rare and giving folks backing store for large result
sets is a big win in my book.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-03-19 04:50:25 | Re: cursors outside transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-19 04:33:07 | Re: cursors outside transactions |