Re: streaming result sets: progress
От | nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk |
---|---|
Тема | Re: streaming result sets: progress |
Дата | |
Msg-id | uheej2civ.fsf@tapsellferrier.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: streaming result sets: progress (Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org>) |
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Scott Lamb <slamb@slamb.org> writes: > First, my understanding is that cursors are only valid within the > transaction in which they were created. Is this correct? > > If so, I can't use the cursor method exclusively. Some of my code needs > to be able to iterate over a resultset and execute whole transactions > based on it. With cursors, it would fail after the first iteration of > the loop. > > From the archives, Barry Lind's plan at one point was to not use > cursors unless setFetchSize() was used explicitly. [*] That would keep > existing code working. Or otherwise, they should not be used if I > specify ResultSet.HOLD_CURSORS_OVER_COMMIT; I could add that to my code > where it is important. If/when the backend changes to support holding > cursors over commit, then they could be used in all cases. > > Does this sound reasonable? I've been thinking about it this morning... I think that we're going to have to drop the idea of keeping the cursor open and go with the idea suggested earlier (sorry, I forget by who) of issuing multiple SQL statements slightly hacked to limit the row set. Otherwise it's just not going to fly with multiple statements. Nic
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: