Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem

From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
Date: 2000-02-04 05:57:54
Message-ID: 389A6A62.7A6BD39C@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > What about portals? Doesn't psql use portals?
>
> No ... portals are a backend concept ...

Since when?

According to the old doco you do...

select portal XX * from table_name where ...;

fetch 20 into XX.

If the PQexec() is called with "fetch 20" at a time
wouldn't this mean that you wouldn't exhaust front-end
memory with a big query?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-02-04 06:06:53 Re: [HACKERS] how to deal with sparse/to-be populated tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-02-04 05:42:58 Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem