Re: Plan invalidation vs. unnamed prepared statements

"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 12:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A. Just accept the extra overhead, thereby preserving the current
>> behavior of unnamed statements, and gaining the benefit that plan
>> invalidation will work correctly in the few cases where an unnamed
>> statement's plan lasts long enough to need replanning.

> With connection pooling, multiple sessions will execute each statement.
> If we check the cache each time this does seem more expensive for each
> individual session, but we should gain synergy from other similar
> sessions.

It seems fairly unlikely to me that client code would try to share an
unnamed statement across multiple application threads; the entire point
is that it's for one-off queries.

Or did you miss the point that the plan cache is local per-backend?

> ISTM there will be some cases where the current behaviour will not be
> maintained if we implement A exactly. One thing I've not seen mentioned
> is the effect of constants on various plans.

There is none.

regards, tom lane