> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:29:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That only works if the caller is prepared to read each result
> >> serially, and not (say) a row at a time in parallel.
>
> > Urk! I don't think anyone is suggesting that resultsets can be
> > interleaved.
>
> No? If not, why not? The main reason why this is being
> pushed, IIRC, is the claim that "you can do this easily in
> other databases". If you don't want to support interleaved
> retrieval of multiple datasets, you had better be prepared to
> prove that no other popular database can do it either.
FWIW, MSSQL used to do only multiple sequential resultsets (from stored
procs, or semicolon separated statements). With SQL 2005, they added
interleaved ones - see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90
/html/MARSinSQL05.asp (loads of details both about how it was before and
how it is in 2005)
//Magnus
