* Dave Cramer (pg@fastcrypt.com) wrote:
> On 9 March 2016 at 20:49, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 March 2016 at 00:41, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal@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 ?
Not generally much of a JDBC user myself, but the inability to avoid
polling for LISTEN notifications is a pretty big annoyance, which I just
ran into with a client. I understand that -ng has a way to avoid that,
even for SSL connections.
> As to your question, you may be interested to know that pgjdbc is more
> performant than ng.
Interesting, good to know.
Thanks!
Stephen
