| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im> |
| Cc: | Enrico Olivelli - Diennea <enrico(dot)olivelli(at)diennea(dot)com>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, PG-JDBC Mailing List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disk buffering of resultsets |
| Date: | 2014-10-30 00:45:37 |
| Message-ID: | 54518A31.8010704@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 10/30/2014 07:27 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn wrote:
> The fetching time is fully defined by a strategy that will be introduced
> after step (2) is complete. Currently it's fully fetched on execute of
> the first query, the main difference is that it's copied into a file and
> not heap.
OK, that's a bit saner, at least if you fetch small results to the heap
then switch to file storage at some threshold.
> As of multiple portals, we are talking about autocommit mode. It's
> mostly about supporting this mode and not forcing user to start a
> transaction or opening another connection. And I am against the idea of
> driver making multiple connections as it will screw up a lot of
> connection pooling scenarios and setups.
What I'm asking is why the *application* doesn't just use multiple
connections or use a transaction with portals.
It's not clear to me why it's worth the complexity in the driver to work
around what seems like problematic application behaviour.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2014-10-30 01:33:40 | Re: Disk buffering of resultsets |
| Previous Message | Vitalii Tymchyshyn | 2014-10-29 23:27:25 | Re: Disk buffering of resultsets |