Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
От | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADK3HH+54GbxpRQoaguHTRj0W49y+BgnW+ghR75Hfk=vd3EKBA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() ("Igal @ Lucee.org" <igal@lucee.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 April 2016 at 12:18, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal@lucee.org> wrote:
So I"m guessing the reason to use ng is to avoid returning * ?
On 4/3/2016 8:21 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:That's good to know, but unfortunately pgjdbc is unusable for us untilOn 9 March 2016 at 20:49, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:On 3/8/2016 5:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Are there good reasons to use pgjdbc over pgjdbc-ng then?Maturity, support for older versions (-ng just punts on support for anything except new releases) and older JDBC specs, completeness of support for some extensions. TBH I haven't done a ton with -ng yet.I'd like to turn this question around. Are there good reasons to use -ng over pgjdbc ?As to your question, you may be interested to know that pgjdbc is more performant than ng.
https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/488 is fixed.
Also, as I mentioned in the ticket, I can't imagine RETURNING * being performant if, for example, I INSERT a large chunk of data like an image data or an uploaded file.
Thanks for the reminder!
Igal
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: