| From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Kevin Wooten <kdubb(at)me(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |
| Date: | 2016-01-05 14:35:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAB=Je-G3cfx8X_xzxwK8Y+hL5Qqkj+WKSnMkgzBh0oed7UcnxQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
>So rather than asking everybody to add new messages to the protocol to support this, wouldn't it be better to support LD in the driver?
Well, it would still require to wrap one's mind around to get that efficient.
You do not like to deallocate all server-prepared statements after
each DDL, do you?
On the other hand, JDBC driver does not know changes to which
tables/views/functions/types would impact statements prepared in
current session, thus JDBC driver has no idea which changes it should
subscribe to.
>wouldn't it be better to support LD in the driver?
That's another question. +1 for supporting LD in the driver (for both
internal and external uses).
Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-01-05 15:27:25 | Re: Are pgrpm changes for JDBC discussed here before submission? |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2016-01-05 14:23:57 | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |