| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Stephen Denne <Stephen(dot)Denne(at)datamail(dot)co(dot)nz>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, PostgreSQL - JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning |
| Date: | 2008-02-14 07:43:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1202975013.16770.594.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 20:18 +1300, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> > But V3 supports having no parameters at all right?
>
> Yes, but you're missing the point. If you want to, for example, ask for
> metadata about the 4th parameter to the query, there has to *be* a 4th
> parameter. If you fold everything inline, you lose the various
> advantages that having the parameters out of line give you, such as the
> ability to query the server about their characteristics or stream their
> actual values in a binary form separate to the query, etc.
Right now, people are choosing to use V2 because of the
parameter-folding characteristics. Those people are giving up the things
you mention, plus much much more. I'm suggesting that we make the
parameter folding an option, to allow people to choose. If they need
access to parameter metadata (or other possibilities) then they won't
take advantage of the parameter-folding option.
I suggest we put the parameter folding option in now, then in 8.4 keep
the option but make it work via a GUC as Tom suggests.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2008-02-14 11:28:57 | Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2008-02-14 07:18:19 | Re: JDBC, prepared queries, and partitioning |