| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench doc fix |
| Date: | 2018-11-30 20:04:11 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1811302100450.19913@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I like this. But maybe we can remove "named"?
>>
>> I also think it makes sense to adjust wording a bit here, and this version
>> sounds good (taking into account the commentary about "named"). I'm moving this
>> to the next CF, where the question would be if anyone from commiters can agree
>> with this point.
>
> I don't see a concrete proposed patch here after the discussion.
>
> Reading the documentation again, we could go for much more detail here.
> For example, what's the point of having -M simple vs -M extended?
They do not use the same libpq-level approach (PQsendQuery vs
PQsendQueryParams), so they are not exercising the same type of client?
Pgbench is also about testing libpq performance.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-11-30 20:06:57 | Re: Synchronous replay take III |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-11-30 19:55:27 | Re: Add function to release an allocated SQLDA |