| From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: update with no changes |
| Date: | 2021-11-19 17:57:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAB-JLwboisbEZDMgunY3o=oYcckQ_MU0SSWByWrSVgL8jXZ7fA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I get the idea of letting the server centralize logic like this - but
> frankly if the application is choosing to send all that data across the
> wire just to have the server throw it away the application is wasting
> network I/O. If it does manage its resources carefully then the server
> will never even see an update and its behavior here becomes moot.
>
> I understand your point, it´s responsability of application to do what it
has to do. But lots of times (maybe 98% of them) is not same people doing
server side and application side. So, Postgres guys will have to review all
code being done on apps ?
And ok, thanks for explaining me.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Mead | 2021-11-19 18:36:49 | Re: [BUG] Autovacuum not dynamically decreasing cost_limit and cost_delay |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-19 17:50:48 | Re: sequence cache is kept forever |