Message-ID: <8350a74f301180a0e5449da5a97d837800e4d6fa.camel@janc.be>
Subject: Re: Client-server communication for FETCH
From: Jan Claeys <lists@janc.be>
To: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2025 10:08:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOjiQ0Ca=A=bRQjdQMgWfZyav-HBMEhf_R9p72QoWFzZ2DC9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAOjiQ0C7NEV9ZBFxbM6KgXnzquaUY3MrN1x8vz_tv7uXac0UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <689686.1764787308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <CAOjiQ0Ca=A=bRQjdQMgWfZyav-HBMEhf_R9p72QoWFzZ2DC9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3-0ubuntu1.1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8350a74f301180a0e5449da5a97d837800e4d6fa.camel%40janc.be>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:45 -0500, Tim Fors wrote:
> Do you have any further thoughts re: addressing this requirement
> (client-side cursor support)? Is this a requirement that the PGSQL
> community would consider implementing in libpq? Without it, it seems
> like a huge impediment to adoption of PGSQL for COBOL applications,
> and as you probably know, COBOL applications are still very
> pervasive. (C programs using ECPG would of course hit the same issue,
> so it's not just a COBOL-specific problem.)

Sounds to me like this ought to be implemented in ECPG and/or its COBOL
equivalent, not in libpq?

That's where the "Embedded SQL" is implemented after all, and also the
equivalent of where Oracle implements its PREFETCH, I think?

And I suppose nobody would be opposed to such improvements, if someone
contributes them or pays for their development...


--=20
Jan Claeys

(please don't CC me when replying to the list)