On 2017-06-22 13:43:35 +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
> But OTOH there are certainly batch workloads where it will be preferrable
> for the first query to reach the server ASAP, rather than waiting to be
> coalesced with the next ones.

Is that really something people expect from a batch API?  I suspect it's
not really, and nothing would stop one from adding PQflush() or similar
calls if desirable anyway.

FWIW, the way I did that in the hack clearly isn't ok: If you were to
send a gigabyte of queries, it'd buffer them all up in memory... So some
more intelligence is going to be needed.

> libpq is not going to know what's best.
> One option may be to leave that decision to the user by providing a
> PQBatchAutoFlush(true|false) property, along with a PQBatchFlush()
> function.

What'd be the difference between PQflush() and PQbatchFlush()?


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to