| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Let's drop V2 protocol |
| Date: | 2012-02-24 18:24:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zVHr47Y6o-Ahg9wx8Hgh_naGwu+Xm3mNfZy35Xrr=nWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I believe it's still somewhat common among JDBC users to force
> V2-protocol connections as a workaround for over-eager prepared
> statement planning. Although I think the issue they're trying to dodge
> will be fixed as of 9.2, that doesn't mean the server-side support can
> go away.
good point. I just went through this. The JDBC driver has a
'prepareThreshold' directive that *mostly* disables server side
prepared statements so you can work with tools like pgbouncer.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work for explicit transaction control
statements so that you have to downgrade jdbc protocol or patch the
driver (which is really the better way to go, but I can understand why
that won't fly for a lot of people).
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-24 18:26:03 | Re: proposal: copybytea command for psql |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-02-24 18:21:05 | Re: Runtime SHAREDIR for testing CREATE EXTENSION |