| From: | Paul Lindner <lindner(at)inuus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Paul Lindner <lindner(at)inuus(dot)com>, Till Toenges <tt(at)kyon(dot)de>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer |
| Date: | 2007-10-01 21:32:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20071001213237.GR3140@inuus.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:06:50AM +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Paul Lindner wrote:
>
> >The problem is that the described solution puts way too much moving
> >parts inside of something that should be very simple. You'd have to
> >recreate most of Postgresql's parsing and grammar inside of Pgbouncer
> >and change it from something simple into a full-featured proxy.
>
> What? Why on earth would you need to recreate the SQL grammar inside
> pgbouncer?! Justify this.
Eh? I didn't mention Sql grammar. A proxy would at minimum have to
track and maintain connection settings and portals and recreate them
on each backend. However a full-featured proxy could parse any GUC
statements.
In fact if you want full support for temporary tables (iffy) /
temporary views (perhaps possible) and whatnot you will have to parse
the SQL flying across the wire so you can recreate the session in it's
entirety.
Of course, I don't want nor need that.
For the record:
Please please please note that I'm only trying to solve a particular
problem here. I know what I want to do is messy, ugly and a little
impure and flies in the face of elegant design.
If it helps think of what I'm proposing as akin to denormalization
of a beautiful schema to achieve specific goals.
--
Paul Lindner ||||| | | | | | | | | |
lindner(at)inuus(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2007-10-01 21:35:47 | Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2007-10-01 21:19:56 | Re: Prepared Statements vs. pgbouncer |