On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 19:00, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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 <Dave@micro-automation.net>
--
Dave Cramer <dave@fastcrypt.com>
Cramer Consulting