On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 15:39 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> That's why I was wondering about the rows per packet. Sending bigger
> packets reduces overall overhead.
>
> (The malloc/free per row doesn't seem too efficient.)
I guess neither of us know then. Oh well. That's good 'cos it soun
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:57:49AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > AIUI the server merely streams the rows to you, the client doesn't get
> > to say how many :)
>
> Right, but presumably we generate a new message per PQgetCopyData()
> request? So my presumption is we need to wait for that to be
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:29 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > When we're running a COPY over a high latency link then network time is
> > going to become dominant, so potentially, running COPY asynchronously
> > might help performance for loads or initial Slony configuration. This is
> > po
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00:33AM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm looking at ways to reduce the number of network calls and/or the
> waiting time while we perform network COPY.
>
> The COPY calls in libpq allow asynchronous actions, yet are coded in a
> synchronous manner in pg_dump, Slony and ps
I'm looking at ways to reduce the number of network calls and/or the
waiting time while we perform network COPY.
The COPY calls in libpq allow asynchronous actions, yet are coded in a
synchronous manner in pg_dump, Slony and psql \copy.
Does anybody have any experience with running COPY in asynch
