| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Prepared statements considered harmful |
| Date: | 2006-09-01 15:26:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20060901152644.GS12644@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:18:37AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sure, but how much does it really matter? If you don't want the plan
> saved for reuse, merely avoiding retransmission of the query text does
> not seem like a major win. Having had time to think about it, I no
> longer think the protocol design is a blocking bug for this problem
> area. It's something we could improve when we are ready to design
> protocol V4, but it does not seem in itself enough reason to make a
> new protocol (with all the pain that entails).
Well, I see the documentation does actually describe the situation
fairly well, so perhaps the right approach is to get interface writers
to appreciate the difference and indicate if named or unnamed prepares
are used.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-01 15:29:33 | Re: insert/update/delete returning and rules |
| Previous Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2006-09-01 15:26:07 | Re: Prepared statements considered harmful |