Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TODO item: list prepared queries

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO item: list prepared queries
Date: 2005-12-31 19:43:26
Message-ID: 20906.1136058206@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> daveg wrote:
>> Could I suggest the reverse? That is, leave client statements alone and
>> mark server side ones specially. It seems to me that "client" is the "normal"
>> case and leaving it alone would be less intrusive.

> Uh, the problem is that we don't normally mark SQL queries, so marking
> only the server prepares and leaving the client prepares alone seems
> inconsistent.

Yesterday I was going to complain that this patch makes things more
obscure rather than less so.  daveg's confusion seems to confirm my
feeling about it.  I'll try to think of some wording I like better.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-01-01 00:04:42
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-12-31 16:50:46
Subject: Re: TODO item: list prepared queries

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group