| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2016-10-04 07:15:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS7xznWDTYX3WRyU2AHuK=b1a0Y-W=u80Gwba53bWeudw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> wrote:
> Wouldn't pgbench benefit from it?
> It was mentioned some time ago [1], in relationship to the
> \into construct, how client-server latency was important enough to
> justify the use of a "\;" separator between statements, to send them
> as a group.
>
> But with the libpq batch API, maybe this could be modernized
> with meta-commands like this:
> \startbatch
> ...
> \endbatch
Or just \batch [on|off], which sounds like a damn good idea to me for
some users willing to test some workloads before integrating it in an
application.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2016-10-04 07:18:02 | Re: proposal: psql \setfileref |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-10-04 07:10:14 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |