Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize?
От | Tsunakawa, Takayuki |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F63681D@G01JPEXMBYT05 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize? (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize?
Re: [RFC] How about changing the default value of defaultRowFetchSize? |
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
From: davecramer@gmail.com [mailto:davecramer@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Dave Cramer > This states that if setFetchSize has not been called then we return what > we want. Given that if the statement is in auto-commit then the fetch size > is irrelevant. The correct logic would be if autocommit=false then return > the default value, otherwise 0, but I'm not advocating this either. > > So my question to you is how would you use this information anyway? It's > not like you can allocate more memory or something to accommodate the rows. > It makes more sense to me that if I get 0 back then I know I have to set > it. If I get the value back that I set it to then I know what's going on. > I would assert that anyone that is knowledgable enough to use this is going > to call setFetchSize. I got your point, thanks. I agree that getFetchSize() returns 0 when setFetchSize() hasn't been called yet or setFetchSize(0)was called. Users can interpret the return value of 0 as (1) defaultRowFetchSize if autocommit is off, or(2) all rows if autocommit is on. I think I'll submit a patch. Of course, I don't mind if anyone will do it. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: