| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question |
| Date: | 2007-01-06 21:58:11 |
| Message-ID: | 200701062158.l06LwBD03325@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ron Mayer wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> What value is allowing multiple queies via PQexec()
> >
> > The only argument I can think of is that it allows applications to be
> > sloppy about parsing a SQL script into individual commands before they
> > send it. (I think initdb may be guilty of exactly that BTW...) At the
> > same time you could argue that such sloppiness is inherently a Bad Idea.
>
> Doesn't it also avoid some network(?) overhead when you have
> a large number of small inserts or updates?
>
> I seem to recall a previous company where we had a major performance
> by concatenating a bunch of updates with ";"s in between and sending
> them to postgresql as a single command.
Added to TODO list:
> o Consider parsing the -c string into individual queries so each
> is run in its own transaction
>
> o Consider disallowing multiple queries in PQexec() as an
> additional barrier to SQL injection attacks
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-06 22:01:57 | Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-06 21:56:12 | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |