public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
To: Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: about client-side cursors
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 10:04:15 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CA+mi_8a1ery2xvb+AdxMtVXydOdGC7wRMnfXNAvk8v73HsLFyw@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CA+mi_8ZhJGgZ46POUn2Bujb1e9guiampac0x+S54x05dSOXUJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Christophe Pettus a écrit :
>> On Feb 4, 2021, at 09:21, Denis Laxalde <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Well, maybe I'm missing something... In the examples above, (written
>> down explicitly to understand where IO happens), if I shut down postgres
>> between 'await conn.execute()' and 'await cur.fetchall()', the first
>> example breaks but the second doesn't. Perhaps the autocommit mention
>> was misleading; it's enough to insert 'await conn.commit()' before
>> 'await cur.fetchall()' to reproduce. So (and again, unless I'm missing
>> something), if this is not "by design", maybe this is bug?
> 
> You're relying on private knowledge, not an API guarantee, as to "where I/O happens" here.  Like any expectation based on private knowledge, you can get tripped up by that.

Well, that's just an exercise for me to understand where things happen. 
Of course, I'd expect an 'await' expression to possibly involve I/O in 
real life.


> If it comes down to "cursor isn't a good name for this class," that's probably true, but we're a decade past making that decision.

That, and the fact that fetch*() methods do not fetch actually. (For the 
synchronous case, I'm quite convinced now this is too late to change.)

>> As far as the async interface is concerned, I think there is no adoption
>> issue because there's no precedent use from psycopg2. So we could
>> expose two API: cursorless querying ('await conn.execute()') and have a
>> single server-side cursor class.
> 
> Right now, switching from using just a client-side cursor object to server-side cursor preserves largely preserves the API.  I think that's a valuable feature that's worth retaining.

Worth retaining, maybe. Is it worth imposing the 'await cursor.fetch*()' 
pattern to everybody when it does not appear needed? I'm not so sure, as 
this would be at the cost of readability and clarity. (On the other 
hand, if I were to migrate some code to use server-side cursors, I would 
probably do it on a case-by-case basis; so if the cursor wasn't there in 
the first place, adding it would be little trouble in contrast to 
deciding where a server-side cursor is needed or not.)

view thread (22+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: about client-side cursors
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox