Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE
Date: 2016-03-24 15:04:31
Message-ID: CAMsr+YF7-MN4weqjLUmWksP6DRxpaAMVsDZsfMAeM8WfNoME0g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24 March 2016 at 20:03, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:

> I have a big question. What need to do with message protocol?
> If we write name in Parse message we store prepared statement. I see some
> solutions for this problem but all not ideal:
> 1. We can add second char token for parse message. But too serious change.
> 2. We can try add parameter to tail of message. But in tail we have
> variable length array with parameters. 3. Detect prefix of prepared name.
> For example "__". Effects think clear.
>

I really, really doubt you can change this before we do a protocol version
bump. The current protocol is too inflexible and doesn't have any kind of
capabilities negotiation. I don't think any of those options can work.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robbie Harwood 2016-03-24 15:07:16 Re: [HACKERS] BUG #13854: SSPI authentication failure: wrong realm name used
Previous Message Emre Hasegeli 2016-03-24 14:56:59 Re: [PATCH] we have added support for box type in SP-GiST index