From: Frank van Vugt <ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl>
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Incremental results from libpq
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:51:54 +0100
Message-ID: <200511101751.55377.ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84C7635D-EAF2-40CF-A71C-976077D5465A@slamb.org>
References: <4D426B54-E08F-4DE9-9776-D46610CA4968@slamb.org>
<19391.1131571328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<84C7635D-EAF2-40CF-A71C-976077D5465A@slamb.org>
> > The main reason why libpq does what it does is that this way we do not
> > have to expose in the API the notion of a command that fails part way
> > through. If you support partial result fetching then you'll have to
> > deal with the idea that a SELECT could fail after you've already
> > returned some rows to the client.
I'm wondering, what kind of failure do you have in mind, here? If I'm informed
correctly then Oracle and others are generating the complete static result
set on the server-side, which will then stay cached until all rows/chunks are
fetched. The one failure that comes to mind in this scenario is that the
connection breaks down, but since informing the client would then be a bit
difficult, you'll certainly be referring to something else ;)
If PostgreSQL were to build the complete result-set before handing over the
first fetched rows/chunks, then I understand. Is that the case? Or something
else even...?
--
Best,
Frank.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Incremental results from libpq
In-Reply-To: <200511101751.55377.ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox