Re: AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chris Bitmead
Subject Re: AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
Date
Msg-id 38A09B8D.C8AA7C7B@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to AW: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem  (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> 
> > Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> > > What about portals? Doesn't psql use portals?
> >
> > No ... portals are a backend concept ...
> >
> 
> I think the previous frontend "monitor" did use a portal for the
> selects. The so called "blank portal".
> 
> I don't really see any advantage, that psql does not do a fetch loop
> with a portal.
> Is it possible in psql do do any "fetch" stuff, after doing a
> select * from table ?

Yes it is if you set up a cursor. I think Tom was right that psql
shouldn't use a portal just as a matter of course, because things
work differently in that case (locks?). I'm sure it could be a 
useful option though.

> 
> The result is fed to a pager anyway.
> 
> Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Deferred trigger queue
Next
From: Chris Bitmead
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Ordering of pg_dump output