| From: | Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Rotteveel <mark(at)lawinegevaar(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize? |
| Date: | 2016-10-20 15:59:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+cVU8PEUrc7eZcQkrpBTSD6+zTgdr7WP=McnOWx6wBF638sOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Mark Rotteveel <mark(at)lawinegevaar(dot)nl>
wrote:
>
> In other words, PostgreSQL JDBC could
>
> leave the default at 0, but then use a default fetch size.
>
>
That's seems wrong, the Fetch Size should be correctly reported, the
defaultRowFetchSize property can be changed to 100 but a call to
getFetchSize() should return 100 not 0.
Based on the driver docs:
"defaultRowFetchSize: Default parameter for
java.sql.Statement#getFetchSize(). A value of 0 means that need fetch all
rows at once"
The value of 0 should be used to fetch all rows, if we leave the default
at 0 and handle internally that as 100 (and reporting it as 0) it is a
wrong behavior.
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-10-20 16:33:16 | Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize? |
| Previous Message | Tillmann Schulz | 2016-10-20 12:53:19 | Re: Return Codes of BatchUpdateException in PostgreSql 9.6 |