| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "Prabakaran, Vaishnavi" <VaishnaviP(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2017-06-22 15:52:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20170622155204.c7n5ahf2tlr2mtyn@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-06-22 13:43:35 +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
> But OTOH there are certainly batch workloads where it will be preferrable
> for the first query to reach the server ASAP, rather than waiting to be
> coalesced with the next ones.
Is that really something people expect from a batch API? I suspect it's
not really, and nothing would stop one from adding PQflush() or similar
calls if desirable anyway.
FWIW, the way I did that in the hack clearly isn't ok: If you were to
send a gigabyte of queries, it'd buffer them all up in memory... So some
more intelligence is going to be needed.
> libpq is not going to know what's best.
> One option may be to leave that decision to the user by providing a
> PQBatchAutoFlush(true|false) property, along with a PQBatchFlush()
> function.
What'd be the difference between PQflush() and PQbatchFlush()?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-06-22 15:52:22 | Re: Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-06-22 15:42:52 | Re: GSoC 2017 Proposal for predicate locking in hash index |