From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: psql's FETCH_COUNT (cursor) is not being respected for CTEs
In-reply-to: <b5fbba3d-2914-457e-a701-7892f86c3ea4@manitou-mail.org>
References: <b5fbba3d-2914-457e-a701-7892f86c3ea4@manitou-mail.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
	message dated "Tue, 02 Apr 2024 22:09:04 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1748581.1712088803.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 16:13:23 -0400
Message-ID: <1748582.1712088803@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1748582.1712088803%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Daniel Verite" <daniel@manitou-mail.org> writes:
> 	Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do not buy that psql's FETCH_COUNT mode is a sufficient reason
>> to add it.  FETCH_COUNT mode is not something you'd use
>> non-interactively

> I should say that I've noticed significant latency improvements with
> FETCH_COUNT retrieving large resultsets, such that it would benefit
> non-interactive use cases.

Do you have a theory for why that is?  It's pretty counterintuitive
that it would help at all.

			regards, tom lane