Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING
От | Jonah H. Harris |
---|---|
Тема | Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 36e682920608110948m676effaeof3c2153017b4dc90@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING
Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry, copied to list. On 8/11/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 3. Throw an error (thereby rolling back the incomplete update) > if client closes the portal without having run it to completion. Sounds like the most reasonable considering. I'm not averse to it. > 4. Treat PORTAL_ONE_RETURNING like PORTAL_UTIL_SELECT rather than > like PORTAL_ONE_SELECT; that is, execute the query to completion > on first call and stash the results in a tuplestore until the > client fetches them. I agree that it's inefficient, but am trying to think of any other positive reasons for doing #4 instead. Can you think of any other advantages system-wide to using #4 instead of #3? -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: