Re: AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'chris(at)bitmead(dot)com'" <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
Date: 2000-02-10 10:12:04
Message-ID: 38A28EF4.70E998A9@tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zeugswetter Andreas SB 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 ...
> >
>
> I think the previous frontend "monitor" did use a portal for the
> selects. The so called "blank portal".

Is'nt the "blank portal" the name of the cursor you get when you just
do a select without creating a cursor ?

> I don't really see any advantage, that psql does not do a fetch loop
> with a portal.

It only increases traffic, as explicit fetch commands need to be sent
to backend. If one does not declare a cursor, an implicit fetch all from
blank is performed.

> Is it possible in psql do do any "fetch" stuff, after doing a
> select * from table ?

only if in a declared cursor, and you can only declare cursor if in a
transaction.

---------------
Hannu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richa Singh 2000-02-10 10:45:27 jdbc 1.2 and postgrsSQL-6.5.3 on RedHat 6.1
Previous Message Karel Zak - Zakkr 2000-02-10 09:42:29 Re: [INTERFACES] The persistance of C functions