Unix Technical Forum

Open items for 8.2

This is a discussion on Open items for 8.2 within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 03:07 schrieb Bruce Momjian: > > Here are the open ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > pgsql Hackers

Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-12-2008, 04:28 AM
Bruce Momjian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Open items for 8.2

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 03:07 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > Here are the open items for 8.2:
> >
> > http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgopenitems

>
> This host seems to be offline. What about using the wiki?


The host is fine. postgresql.org DNS is broken. Reference the host
directly:

http://momjian.us/cgi-bin/pgopenitems
--

Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-12-2008, 04:28 AM
Michael Paesold
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Open items for 8.2

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> Am Dienstag, 5. September 2006 05:58 schrieb Tom Lane:
>>> A couple of recently discussed FE/BE protocol issues are: not storing a
>>> plan at all for unnamed-statement cases, and thus allowing bind
>>> parameters to be treated as constants; allowing parameter types to go
>>> unresolved rather than throwing an error. Perhaps it's too late to
>>> consider these for 8.2, but they seem no more invasive than some other
>>> items on the open-issues list.

>
>> Do we have a patch for that today?

>
> We could have a patch for the first one today --- I was thinking about
> it last night and intending to code it today. The second one is merely
> a matter of removing an error check that exists now; the question really
> is do people want that behavior. (I asked that on the jdbc list and got
> zero response, so actually I was thinking that it was a dead issue; but
> as long as it's on the open-items list we ought to discuss it.)


I personally think it's a good idea to do it, as it should improve the
plans for one-shot queries. Unfortunately I don't certainly know how the
JDBC driver issues queries when called through a PreparedStatement but
without a "prepare-threshold"[*] set. If it uses the unnamed-statement,
then I guess the proposed change would be a win.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold
[*] This option determines, after how many executes of a prepared
statement, the driver will switch to server-side prepares.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com