On 9 March 2016 at 20:49, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> On 10 March 2016 at 00:41, Igal @ Lucee.org <i...@lucee.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.
I'd like to turn this question around. Are there good reasons to use -ng
over pgjdbc ?

As to your question, you may be interested to know that pgjdbc is more
performant than ng.

Dave Cramer


Reply via email to