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.
