Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Igal (at) Lucee(dot)org" <igal(at)lucee(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ian Barwick <ian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()
Date: 2016-03-10 01:49:41
Message-ID: CAMsr+YHRW=GFW-MSDbVBN8XMiXhAdZEK9WwEwxx_Ctr-2y3njg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10 March 2016 at 00:41, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal(at)lucee(dot)org> wrote:

> On 3/8/2016 5:12 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> One of the worst problems (IMO) is in the driver architecture its self.
>> It attempts to prevent blocking by guestimating the server's send buffer
>> state and its recv buffer state, trying to stop them filling and causing
>> the server to block on writes. It should just avoid blocking on its own
>> send buffer, which it can control with confidence. Or use some of Java's
>> rather good concurrency/threading features to simultaneously consume data
>> from the receive buffer and write to the send buffer when needed, like
>> pgjdbc-ng does.
>>
>
> Are there good reasons to use pgjdbc over pgjdbc-ng then?
>
>
Maturity, support for older versions (-ng just punts on support for
anything except new releases) and older JDBC specs, completeness of support
for some extensions. TBH I haven't done a ton with -ng yet.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pokurev 2016-03-10 01:51:36 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Previous Message Kouhei Kaigai 2016-03-10 01:18:30 Re: Reworks of CustomScan serialization/deserialization