From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Ashley Cambrell" <ash(at)freaky-namuh(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7.3 schedule |
Date: | 2002-04-11 15:54:34 |
Message-ID: | 20020411115434.201ff92f.nconway@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:25:24 +1000
"Ashley Cambrell" <ash(at)freaky-namuh(dot)com> wrote:
> What are the chances that the BE/FE will be altered to take advantage of
> prepare / execute? Or is it something that will "never happen"?
Is there a need for this? The current patch I'm working on just
does everything using SQL statements, which I don't think is
too bad (the typical client programmer won't actually need to
see them, their interface should wrap the PREPARE/EXECUTE stuff
for them).
On the other hand, there are already a few reasons to make some
changes to the FE/BE protocol (NOTIFY messages, transaction state,
and now possibly PREPARE/EXECUTE -- anything else?). IMHO, each of
these isn't worth changing the protocol by itself, but perhaps if
we can get all 3 in one swell foop it might be a good idea...
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-11 15:57:56 | Re: Implicit coercions need to be reined in |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-11 15:51:46 | Re: 7.3 schedule |