On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Shaun Thomas <stho...@optionshouse.com>wrote:
> On 07/09/2012 07:02 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > Do do cursors. >> > > Did you mean "Do not use cursors" here? > > Then the user goes away on a week's holiday and leaves their PC at >> your "next" button. >> > > This exactly. Cursors have limited functionality that isn't directly > disruptive to the database in general. At the very least, the transaction > ID reservation necessary to preserve a cursor long-term can wreak havoc on > your transaction ID wraparound if you have a fairly busy database. I can't > think of a single situation where either client caching or LIMIT/OFFSET > can't supplant it with better risk levels and costs. > A good solution to this general problem is "hitlists." I wrote about this concept before: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2010-05/msg00058.php Craig James (the other Craig) > -- > Shaun Thomas > OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 > 312-444-8534 > stho...@optionshouse.com > > > > ______________________________**________________ > > See > http://www.peak6.com/email_**disclaimer/<http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/>for > terms and conditions related to this email > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.** > org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-performance<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance> >
