Re: Named Prepared statement problems and possible solutions

On 6/8/23 10:56, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 10:31, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info
> <mailto:jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>> wrote:
>
> On 6/8/23 09:53, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > On 6/8/23 09:21, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > The server doesn't know about all the clients of the pooler, does
> it? It
> > has no way of telling if/when a client disconnects from the pooler.
>
> Another problem that complicates doing it in the server is that the
> information require to (re-)prepare a statement in a backend that
> currently doesn't have it needs to be kept in shared memory. This
> includes the query string itself. Doing that without shared memory in a
> pooler that is multi-threaded or based on async-IO is much simpler and
> allows for easy ballooning.
>
>
> I don't expect the server to re-prepare the statement. If the server
> responds with "statement doesn't exist" the client would send a prepare.

Are you proposing a new libpq protocol version?

Jan