* Dave Cramer (p...@fastcrypt.com) wrote: > 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 ?
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
