| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>, Matthieu Garrigues <matthieu(dot)garrigues(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2020-11-11 22:46:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20201111224630.zz3n6irudhl5nklh@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-11-03 10:42:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It would definitely help if you (and others) could think about the API
> being added: Does it fulfill the promises being made? Does it offer the
> guarantees that real-world apps want to have? I'm not much of an
> application writer myself -- particularly high-traffic apps that would
> want to use this.
Somewhere earlier in this thread there was a patch with support for
batching in pgbench. I think it'd be good to refresh that. Both because
it shows at least some real-world-lite usage of the feature and because
we need a way to stress it to see whether it has unnecessary
bottlenecks.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-11 22:46:59 | Returning NULL from satisfies_hash_partition() is a bad idea |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2020-11-11 22:31:32 | Tracking cluster upgrade and configuration history |