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

Re: first time hacker ;) messing with prepared statements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joris Dobbelsteen <joris(at)familiedobbelsteen(dot)nl>
Cc: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: first time hacker ;) messing with prepared statements
Date: 2008-03-30 21:09:17
Message-ID: 28827.1206911357@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-03-30 21:34:21
Subject: Re: Connection to PostgreSQL Using Certificate: Wrong Permissions on Private Key File
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-03-30 21:04:30
Subject: Re: Patch : Global Prepared Statements

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