AW: AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
От | Zeugswetter Andreas SB |
---|---|
Тема | AW: AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C603FDC243@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > > > > Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes: > > > > What about portals? Doesn't psql use portals? > > > > > > No ... portals are a backend concept ... > > > > > > > I think the previous frontend "monitor" did use a portal for the > > selects. The so called "blank portal". > > > > I don't really see any advantage, that psql does not do a fetch loop > > with a portal. > > Is it possible in psql do do any "fetch" stuff, after doing a > > select * from table ? > > Yes it is if you set up a cursor. My question implied, that a cursor was not set up. That is type: select * from tab; in psql. > I think Tom was right that psql > shouldn't use a portal just as a matter of course, because things > work differently in that case (locks?). There is no difference in locking behavior. So the question remains, why don't we always use a cursor in psql. It seems the current behavior wastes resources without an obvious advantage. Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: