Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Interestingly, Peter Geoghegan's blog post on the pg_stat_statements > patch you just committed[1] claims that the overhead of fingerprinting > queries was only 1-2.5%, which is less than I would have thought, so > if we ever get to the point where we're fairly sure we've got problem > three licked, it might make sense to revisit this due to problems one > and two.
Maybe. > It's also probably worth keeping in mind the next time we > bump the protocol version: it would be nice to have a way of doing > prepare-bind-execute in a single protocol message, which I believe to > be not possible at present. Huh? That's the standard way of doing it, actually. You send Prepare/Bind/Execute/Sync in one packet, and wait for results. This requires that you understand the query well enough to perform Bind without seeing a Describe result, but that seems essential to any one-round-trip case anyway. It's not the protocol design that is holding back anybody who wants to do that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers