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

Re: PERSISTANT PREPARE (another point of view)

From: Milan Oparnica <milan(dot)opa(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PERSISTANT PREPARE (another point of view)
Date: 2008-07-16 20:51:56
Message-ID: g5ln0n$25mi$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-sql
Milan Oparnica wrote:
> It's simply to complicated to return recordsets through server-side 
> stored procedures. They are obviously designed to do complex data 
> manipulation, returning few output variables informing the caller about 
> final results. Returning records through sets of user-defined-types is 
> memory and performance waste (please see my previous post as reply to 
> Steve for more details). Plus it's hard to maintain and make 
> improvements to such a system. I hate to see 800 user types made for 
> every query we made as stored procedure.

Is this topic completely out of scope in Postgre ?
If I'm missing something too obvious or too important, please let me 
know what.

I run over and over through internet and Postgre documentation and still 
found nothing.

Is there a better place to communicate with Postgre developers ?


Milan Oparnica

In response to


pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-07-17 06:13:41
Subject: Re: PERSISTANT PREPARE (another point of view)
Previous:From: Volkan YAZICIDate: 2008-07-16 20:20:20
Subject: pg_advisory_lock(bigint) vs. LOCK TABLE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group