| From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Kevin Wooten <kdubb(at)me(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | |
| Date: | 2016-01-05 16:15:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAB=Je-E6=zKw2XYjtnhiuhmqFob--23Cxu6JMbhX2qnHLq4e=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
>it would surely be push messages sent asynchronously
Well, full async here could be bad since it would be bad throw
exceptions like "you are executing queries faster than JDBC driver
fetches LD queue" at user.
Otherwise JDBC driver would have hard time figuring out if "all the
DDL notifications have been generated and consumed".
Nevertheless, whatever interface is chosen to signal DDL changes, it
makes sense to consider "granular notifications" (including per
"prepared-statement" ones) from the start even if the very first
implementation would sent just "discard all".
Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Harvey | 2016-01-05 16:19:30 | Re: Are pgrpm changes for JDBC discussed here before submission? |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2016-01-05 16:07:49 | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |