Robert Haas wrote: > > Adding SQL to indicate whether it should be re-planned or not is completely > > unappealing. If I could change the code, today, I'd just turn off or choose > > not to use PREPARE/EXECUTE. Today, PREPARE/EXECUTE seems like it should > > always be considered slower unless one can prove it is actually faster in a > > specific case, which is the exact opposite of what people expect. > > I don't really understand most of what you're saying here, but there's > definitely some truth to your last sentence. This has easily got to > be one of the top ten questions on -performance.
It seems it is the problem everyone knows about but no one fixes. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
