| From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2016-10-04 08:39:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1e186415-1f0c-6e9b-16d4-a9fe9c605de8@archidevsys.co.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/10/16 20:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> wrote:
>> Wouldn't pgbench benefit from it?
>> It was mentioned some time ago [1], in relationship to the
>> \into construct, how client-server latency was important enough to
>> justify the use of a "\;" separator between statements, to send them
>> as a group.
>>
>> But with the libpq batch API, maybe this could be modernized
>> with meta-commands like this:
>> \startbatch
>> ...
>> \endbatch
> Or just \batch [on|off], which sounds like a damn good idea to me for
> some users willing to test some workloads before integrating it in an
> application.
+1
'\batch' is a bit easier, to find, & to remember than '\startbatch'
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-10-04 08:51:01 | Re: multivariate statistics (v19) |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-10-04 08:38:48 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |