Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?

From: <wespvp(at)syntegra(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Eric Ridge <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com>, Pgsql-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cursors and Transactions, why?
Date: 2004-04-06 21:37:36
Message-ID: BC988D50.C2E6%wespvp@syntegra.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 4/6/04 3:55 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>> The kludge solution I implemented was to write out all the data I
>> needed from table A to a file, then read that file and update table B.
>
> In theory at least, that should not be any faster than a WITH HOLD
> cursor, since you're effectively replicating the same functionality
> outside the database ...

Except for the "out of memory" thing...

Are you saying that once the first COMMIT completed, all COMMIT's after that
would function at normal speed - only the first one has to save the result
set?

Wes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message CSN 2004-04-06 21:57:36 Logging database and statement with errors
Previous Message Bob.Henkel 2004-04-06 21:16:49 Re: Large DB