| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, roji(at)roji(dot)org, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, stark(at)mit(dot)edu, ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Slowness of extended protocol |
| Date: | 2016-08-19 06:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20160819.154912.111653119959931520.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Tatsuo>understanding it always uses unnamed portal even if the SQL is like
> "BEGIN" or "COMMIT" (no parameters). They are too often used. Why not
> doing like this?
>
> Does it actually work?
>
> The documentation says named portals last till the end of the transaction:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/protocol-flow.html#PROTOCOL-FLOW-EXT-QUERY
>
>
> doc>If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of
> the current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed
Oh, ok. I misunderstood that named portals survive beyond transaction
boundary.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-08-19 07:07:18 | Dynamic shared memory areas |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-19 06:46:50 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |