| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |
| Date: | 2016-01-13 16:45:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC6Vj351-jmE2sg2dcUWGDLjCDTiofZ-v4aAdMEkE8TFQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
2016-01-13 17:12 GMT+01:00 Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> >If plan is ok for one value parameters, then can be pretty bad for
> following parameters.
>
> Happy statements are all alike; every unhappy statement is unhappy in
> its own way (see [1]).
> If user is sending different kinds of parameters, he is shooting in the
> foot.
>
> >Albe's proposal can be good enough for 2/3 cases and it doesn't block any
> other enhancing
>
> Albe's proposal effectively disables plan cache, thus it blocks enhancing.
> If a user goes "replan every time" route, there is no way you
> introduce plan caching there.
>
I am sorry, I disagree. Albe's proposal should be compatible with current
state, so your argument is too strong. Default is same.
Pavel
>
> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
>
> Vladimir
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-13 16:46:07 | Python 3.x versus PG 9.1 branch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-13 16:24:03 | Re: pg_dump and premature optimizations for objects not to be dumped |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2016-01-13 18:23:39 | Re: [pgjdbc] Implement JDBC specs via pre-processor step (#435) |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-01-13 16:12:01 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |