Re: pgbench doc fix
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench doc fix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1811020818350.12518@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench doc fix (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench doc fix
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert, >> Yes, you need to send params (thus send bind message) anyway. >> Regarding re-parsing, maybe you mixed up parse-analythis with >> planning? Re-parse-analythis can only be avoided if you can reuse >> named (or unnamed) parepared statements. > > So given this, I'm struggling to see anything wrong with the current > wording. ISTM that the point is not that it is wrong, but it could be more precise. > I mean, if you say that you are reusing prepared statements, It does not say "reuse" explicitely, it says "prepared: use extended query protocol with prepared statements." but the extended protocol does always "prepare" statements before executing them, the difference are that with "-M prepared" (1) it is done just once and (2) named so that it can be indeed reused. Note that "extended" prepares much more statements than "prepared":-) > someone will assume that you are avoiding preparing them repeatedly, > which -M extended will not do ... and by the nature of that approach, > cannot do. Sure. At the protocol level "prepare" is slightly imprecise, and the documentation is about the protocol used. So I do not think a more precise wording harms. Maybe: "prepared: use extended query protocol with REUSED named prepared statements" would be even less slightly ambiguous. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: