> Although I don't have a clear opinion myself, I sometimes read on this list
> that people are using prepared statements to get safe, stable plans, i.e.
> plans that don't depend on the specific parameter input.
I definitely want the possibility of getting stable plans. That's only
possible if
Tom Lane wrote:
The infrastructure for the former planning method (using the first
Bind's parameters as sample values for estimation, but not as constants)
is still there, but it's not being used now. Does anyone want to argue
for changing things to plan named statements that way? I'm of two mi
I wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I believe this could usefully (and transparently to clients) be changed
>> so that Bind on the unnamed statement does _not_ store the plan back in
>> the unnamed statement's context, but instead produces a plan which is
>> only used _for
Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe this could usefully (and transparently to clients) be changed
> so that Bind on the unnamed statement does _not_ store the plan back in
> the unnamed statement's context, but instead produces a plan which is
> only used _for that specific p
