On May 16, 1:11 am, "Jeremy Kemper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I like the gist of your idea and approach. Thanks for working on it. > > I'd start with using bound variables first, though. They're always > beneficial and are a natural stepping stone to prepared statements > which can be added later for those queries which may benefit (many do > not).
Thanks. :) Though I don't exactly understand what you mean - aren't prepared statements and bounded variables the same thing? That is, is it not so that one cannot exist without the other? My patch uses both prepared statements and bounded variables, in case that wasn't clear. > Sorry I didn't comment on your earlier postgres patch: it includes a > lot of superfluous style edits and untested changes, so I didn't > review further. I salute your effort but it could use a lot of cleanup > before committing. No need to apologize. And I'd like to add a minor correction: the PostgreSQL patch isn't mine, I'm merely trying to get attention on that patch, because it has a lot of fixes that I depend on. > Are you attending RailsConf this week? I will not be attending RailsConf. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
