From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 00:00:24 |
Message-ID: | 3E77B318.C8EFB27F@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > The question here is do we want to offer a half-baked solution,
> > recognizing that it's some improvement over no solution at all?
> > Or do we feel it doesn't meet our standards?
>
> My question is how would you do this if you need this
> functionality and you don't have WITH HOLD cursors?
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.
Why are cursors outside transactions expected eagerly ?
Because it's very hard (almost impossible) for clients
to provide a functionality to edit(display/scroll/update
etc) large result sets effectively.
I don't object to a half-baked solution if there's a
prospect of a real solution. However, I've never seen
it and I have little time to investigate it unfortunately.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | postgresql | 2003-03-19 00:07:30 | mvcc and lock |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-18 23:45:20 | Re: libpq's error messages not working as before |