| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cursors outside transactions |
| Date: | 2003-03-19 04:33:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3862.1048048387@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Still, given that we have no prospect of a "real" solution any time
soon, a limited solution might be a reasonable thing to offer for now.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-19 04:36:22 | Re: cursors outside transactions |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-03-19 01:47:28 | Re: cursors outside transactions |