On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 19:00, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > The question here is do we want to offer a half-baked solution,
> > > recognizing that it's some improvement over no solution at all?
> > > Or do we feel it doesn't meet our standards?
> > 
> > My question is how would you do this if you need this
> > functionality and you don't have WITH HOLD cursors?
> ODBC(maybe JDBC also) has cross-transaction result sets
> (rather than cursors) since long by simply holding all
> results for a query at client side.

JDBC is running into problems with this. Large queries cause out of
memory exceptions.
> Why are cursors outside transactions expected eagerly ?
> Because it's very hard (almost impossible) for clients
> to provide a functionality to edit(display/scroll/update
>  etc) large result sets effectively.
> I don't object to a half-baked solution if there's a
> prospect of a real solution. However, I've never seen
> it and I have little time to investigate it unfortunately.
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
>       http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Cramer Consulting

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to