On 10 March 2016 at 00:41, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal@lucee.org> wrote:
On 3/8/2016 5:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
One of the worst problems (IMO) is in the driver architecture its self. It attempts to prevent blocking by guestimating the server's send buffer state and its recv buffer state, trying to stop them filling and causing the server to block on writes. It should just avoid blocking on its own send buffer, which it can control with confidence. Or use some of Java's rather good concurrency/threading features to simultaneously consume data from the receive buffer and write to the send buffer when needed, like pgjdbc-ng does.
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.