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 -- Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
