| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dmitry Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2016-10-04 08:38:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YEPU+bSSbxbhjX_LQ_Fz9G2=zb8Mex6-TZ2eRsiyBQMcg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4 Oct. 2016 15:15, "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
wrote:
> > Wouldn't pgbench benefit from it?
> > It was mentioned some time ago [1], in relationship to the
> > \into construct, how client-server latency was important enough to
> > justify the use of a "\;" separator between statements, to send them
> > as a group.
> >
> > But with the libpq batch API, maybe this could be modernized
> > with meta-commands like this:
> > \startbatch
> > ...
> > \endbatch
>
> Or just \batch [on|off], which sounds like a damn good idea to me for
> some users willing to test some workloads before integrating it in an
> application.
A batch jsnt necessarily terminated by a commit, so I'm more keen on
start/end batch. It's more in line with begin/commit. Batch is not only a
mode, you also have to delineate batches.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-10-04 08:39:26 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Previous Message | Victor Wagner | 2016-10-04 08:28:42 | Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscription |