Shay Rojansky <r...@roji.org> writes: >> To my mind there is not a lot of value in performing Bind until you >> are ready to do Execute. The only reason the operations are separated >> in the protocol is so that you can do multiple Executes with a row limit >> on each one, to retrieve a large query result in chunks.
> So you would suggest changing my message chain to send Bind right after > Execute, right? This would yield the following messages: > P1/P2/D1/B1/E1/D2/B2/E2/S (rather than the current > P1/D1/B1/P2/D2/B2/E1/C1/E2/C2/S) > This would mean that I would switch to using named statements and the > unnamed portal, rather than the current unnamed statement > and named portals. If I recall correctly, I was under the impression that > there are some PostgreSQL performance benefits to using the > unnamed statement over named statements, although I admit I can't find any > documentation backing that. Can you confirm that the two > are equivalent performance-wise? Hmm. I do not recall exactly what performance optimizations apply to those two cases; they're probably not "equivalent", though I do not think the difference is major in either case. TBH I was a bit surprised on reading your message to hear that the system would take that sequence at all; it's not obvious that it should be allowed to replace a statement, named or not, while there's an open portal that depends on it. I think you might have more issues with lifespans, since portals go away at commit whereas named statements don't. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers