| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |
| Date: | 2016-03-24 19:52:14 |
| Message-ID: | 56F4456E.2030309@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/23/2016 09:10 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> No one is arguing that that you should send it any every time (at
>> least -- I hope not).
>
> I'm not sure I follow how you can avoid that though?
>
> pgbouncer in transaction pooling mode may let a particular connection
> die off and then, when you issue a new request, create a new one- which
> won't have any prepared queries in it, even though you never lost your
> connection to pgbouncer.
>
> That's why I was saying you'd have to send it at the start of every
> transaction, which does add to network load and requires parsing, etc.
> Would be nice to avoid that, if possible, but I'm not quite sure how.
>
> One thought might be to have the server somehow have a pre-canned set of
> queries already set up and ready for you to use when you connect,
> without any need to explicitly prepare them, etc.
Personally I think the right solution would be to add support for
prepared statements in pgbouncer, and have pgbouncer run PREPARE as
necessary, either after opening a new connection to the database or at
the first use of a given prepared statement in a connection.
Application level connection poolers with prepared statement support,
e.g. sequel for Ruby, does not need any special support from PostgreSQL
and work just fine with our current feature set.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-24 20:28:08 | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-24 19:47:03 | Re: Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |