Re: SQL functions, INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING, and triggers

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL functions, INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE RETURNING, and triggers
Date: 2006-10-12 19:06:20
Message-ID: 20061012190620.GR28647@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:03:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> > The specific concern I have is large result sets, like 10s or 100s of MB
> > (or more). We just added support for not buffering those in psql, so it
> > seems like a step backwards to have the backend now buffering it (unless
> > I'm confused on how a tuplestore works...)
>
> Well, a tuplestore can dump to disk, so at least you don't need to worry
> about out-of-memory considerations.

Sure, it's just a lot of data to be shuffling around if we can avoid it.

Perhaps we could only do this if there's triggers on the table involved?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2006-10-12 19:07:11 Re: Hints proposal
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2006-10-12 19:03:47 Re: [HACKERS] Hints proposal