Joris Dobbelsteen <joris(at)familiedobbelsteen(dot)nl> writes:
> The MAJOR benefit of Microsoft's approach is that it works on existing
> application, and, most importantly makes NO assumptions on the
> "volatile" server state. A few cases where the Microsoft solution works,
> while yours will fail is:
> * Server restart and assorted like failover (you need to redo a
> global prepare).
Hmm? He's proposing storing the info in a system catalog. That hardly
seems "volatile"; it'll certainly survive a server restart.
> * Cleanup and instantiation of a prepared statement.
Again, it's not clear what you've got in mind.
I agree with the point that this isn't completely transparent to
applications, but if an app is already using named prepared statements
it would surely be a pretty small matter to make it use this feature.
The app code would likely get simpler instead of more complex, since
you'd stop worrying about whether a given statement had been prepared
yet in the current session.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-30 21:34:21|
|Subject: Re: Connection to PostgreSQL Using Certificate: Wrong Permissions on Private Key File |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-30 21:04:30|
|Subject: Re: Patch : Global Prepared Statements |