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

Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Stephen Denne <Stephen(dot)Denne(at)datamail(dot)co(dot)nz>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning
Date: 2008-02-14 11:28:57
Message-ID: 47B425F9.4050101@opencloud.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 20:18 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> But V3 supports having no parameters at all right?
>> Yes, but you're missing the point. If you want to, for example, ask for 
>> metadata about the 4th parameter to the query, there has to *be* a 4th 
>> parameter. If you fold everything inline, you lose the various 
>> advantages that having the parameters out of line give you, such as the 
>> ability to query the server about their characteristics or stream their 
>> actual values in a binary form separate to the query, etc.
> 
> Right now, people are choosing to use V2 because of the
> parameter-folding characteristics. Those people are giving up the things
> you mention, plus much much more. I'm suggesting that we make the
> parameter folding an option, to allow people to choose. If they need
> access to parameter metadata (or other possibilities) then they won't
> take advantage of the parameter-folding option.
> 
> I suggest we put the parameter folding option in now, then in 8.4 keep
> the option but make it work via a GUC as Tom suggests.

To do this in the driver basically needs a separate protocol path. The 
infrastructure is there for that, but it's not trivial to implement. You 
could use the existing v3 code as a basis, but there would be a lot of 
changes necessary as all of the current v3 code assumes it is working 
with parameterized queries at the protocol level.

Does someone who is affected by this want to pick up this approach and 
send through some patches?

I'm a bit nervous about introducing another protocol path since we have 
enough trouble trying to maintain the existing ones..

-O

In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-02-14 12:07:56
Subject: Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-02-14 07:43:33
Subject: Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning

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