Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Date: 2016-05-24 13:55:08
Message-ID: 5fa03f9a-de65-0190-d4da-77eff5dbe019@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/23/16 4:19 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> + Batching less useful when information from one operation is required by the

SB "Batching is less useful".
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2016-05-24 14:02:45 Re: pg_dump -j against standbys
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2016-05-24 13:51:43 Re: Inheritance