From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: psql's FETCH_COUNT (cursor) is not being respected for CTEs |
Date: | 2024-04-02 16:50:14 |
Message-ID: | 1655990.1712076614@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> writes:
> Updated patches are attached.
I started to look through this, and almost immediately noted
- <sect1 id="libpq-single-row-mode">
- <title>Retrieving Query Results Row-by-Row</title>
+ <sect1 id="libpq-chunked-results-modes">
+ <title>Retrieving Query Results in chunks</title>
This is a bit problematic, because changing the sect1 ID will
change the page's URL, eg
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-single-row-mode.html
Aside from possibly breaking people's bookmarks, I'm pretty sure this
will cause the web docs framework to not recognize any cross-version
commonality of the page. How ugly would it be if we left the ID
alone? Another idea could be to leave the whole page alone and add
a new <sect1> for chunked mode.
But ... TBH I'm not convinced that we need the chunked mode at all.
We explicitly rejected that idea back when single-row mode was
designed, see around here:
and I'm still very skeptical that there's much win to be had.
I do not buy that psql's FETCH_COUNT mode is a sufficient reason
to add it. FETCH_COUNT mode is not something you'd use
non-interactively, and there is enough overhead elsewhere in psql
(notably in result-set formatting) that it doesn't seem worth
micro-optimizing the part about fetching from libpq.
(I see that there was some discussion in that old thread about
micro-optimizing single-row mode internally to libpq by making
PGresult creation cheaper, which I don't think anyone ever got
back to doing. Maybe we should resurrect that.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-02 16:58:18 | Re: On disable_cost |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-02 16:26:27 | Re: On disable_cost |