On 9 March 2016 at 20:49, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 00:41, Igal @ Lucee.org <i...@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 ? As to your question, you may be interested to know that pgjdbc is more performant than ng. Dave Cramer da...@postgresintl.com www.postgresintl.com
