|From:||"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, bruce(at)momjian(dot)us|
|Subject:||Re: scrollable cursor support without MOVE statement|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
>On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 17:42 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > >
> > >This is the most recent email I have on this. Was the scrollable patch
> > >applied? If not, would you resubmit?
> > >
> > I resubmit scrollable cursor patch
>I notice your patch has been accepted, though admit I hadn't noticed it
I resubmited this patch because Bruce removed it from queue instead of GUC
>Can I ask a question relating to the patch?
>How is the scrollability determined?
>Scrollable cursors and sorts don't mix very well in terms of
>performance, as you may know. Previously, since NOSCROLL was the only
>option, this wasn't a problem. Now that we have scrollable cursors, it
>is an issue, since according to the doc change the scrollability default
>is neither scroll nor noscroll.
default is noscroll
>I'm concerned that many PL/pgSQL routines will now run slower because
>they may now be considered scrollable when they previously were not. How
>is the scrollability determined? Do we look at the kids of FETCH being
>used to determine whether we need scrolling? (which would be great) Or
>will we have to manually change all existing PL/pgSQL code so that it is
>definitely NOSCROLL? (which would be unacceptable). Or?
default is without changes on functionality.
Emotikony a pozadi programu MSN Messenger ozivi vasi konverzaci.
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2007-04-18 04:59:55||Re: log_autovacuum|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2007-04-18 01:45:27||Re: log_autovacuum|