| From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |
| Date: | 2016-01-13 13:36:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAB=Je-EDpHs=yfvQ69cZrSytjwG-fi3QN72=xLRQxsd=kU6QOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Note: I do not suggest changing already cached plans yet.
I suggest looking into "6th bind values" when building a cached plan.
In other words, "if first 5 execution do not reveal dependence on bind
values, then cache the generated plan".
>Say you already have a plan which looks like this:
>Now the plan gets invoked with $1 = 5. What exactly in your mind would happen here?
A sequential scan with $1=5 condition. What else could be there?
Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-01-13 13:37:27 | Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-01-13 13:30:43 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-01-13 13:47:37 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-01-13 13:30:43 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |