Re: pgbench doc fix

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench doc fix
Date: 2018-11-02 07:35:29
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.21.1811020818350.12518@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Robert,

>> Yes, you need to send params (thus send bind message) anyway.
>> Regarding re-parsing, maybe you mixed up parse-analythis with
>> planning? Re-parse-analythis can only be avoided if you can reuse
>> named (or unnamed) parepared statements.
>
> So given this, I'm struggling to see anything wrong with the current
> wording.

ISTM that the point is not that it is wrong, but it could be more precise.

> I mean, if you say that you are reusing prepared statements,

It does not say "reuse" explicitely, it says

"prepared: use extended query protocol with prepared statements."

but the extended protocol does always "prepare" statements before
executing them, the difference are that with "-M prepared" (1) it is done
just once and (2) named so that it can be indeed reused.

Note that "extended" prepares much more statements than "prepared":-)

> someone will assume that you are avoiding preparing them repeatedly,
> which -M extended will not do ... and by the nature of that approach,
> cannot do.

Sure. At the protocol level "prepare" is slightly imprecise, and the
documentation is about the protocol used.

So I do not think a more precise wording harms. Maybe: "prepared: use
extended query protocol with REUSED named prepared statements" would be
even less slightly ambiguous.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-11-02 07:37:13 Re: wal_dump output on CREATE DATABASE
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-11-02 07:30:24 Re: Small run-time pruning doc fix