From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key() |
Date: | 2016-04-03 19:35:27 |
Message-ID: | 20160403193527.GN10850@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Dave Cramer (pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com) wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 20:49, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 March 2016 at 00:41, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal(at)lucee(dot)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 ?
Not generally much of a JDBC user myself, but the inability to avoid
polling for LISTEN notifications is a pretty big annoyance, which I just
ran into with a client. I understand that -ng has a way to avoid that,
even for SSL connections.
> As to your question, you may be interested to know that pgjdbc is more
> performant than ng.
Interesting, good to know.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-04-03 19:41:17 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
Previous Message | Alex Shulgin | 2016-04-03 18:51:04 | Re: More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics |