| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yonatan Ben-Nes <da(at)canaan(dot)co(dot)il>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL injection |
| Date: | 2005-11-01 17:19:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1130865552.15018.47.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 09:09, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 10:13:20PM -0500, Alex Turner wrote:
> > I didn't think query plans were cached between sessions, in which case
> > prepeared statements aren't worth much for most HTTP based systems
> > (not counting luckily re-using the same connection using pgpool)...
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm mistaken - I like being wrong ;)
>
> No, you're right, but if you're not using connection pooling you clearly
> don't care about performance anyway...
Depends on what you mean by performance. I've written apps that were
used by one or two people at once, and spit out 100M at a shot for an
excel spread sheet or made huge 100 page pdfs. They had to run fast,
but connection time wasn't an issue. Since the average run time of
those scripts as 1 to 30 seconds, the connect time was absolutely not an
issue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Browne | 2005-11-01 17:20:58 | Re: Oracle 10g Express - any danger for Postgres? |
| Previous Message | Welty, Richard | 2005-11-01 17:10:55 | Re: Oracle 10g Express - any danger for Postgres? |