On 06/19/2014 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, I thought the JDBC crew would be the most likely source of
> push-back on such a proposal :-(. It's been common practice in that
> community to tell the JDBC driver to use v2 protocol if you were having
> performance problems with prepared statements. I'm not sure if those
> issues have been solved to the point where that workaround is no longer
> necessary.
The work you committed in 9.2 (?) to re-plan generic paths appears to
have resolved the vast majority of that problem. Certainly to the point
where it's no longer worth retaining a whole new protocol just for the
purpose.
At least, that's my opinion on the matter - Dave's the one doing the
vast majority of the work on the driver, so it's his opinion that'll
really count, but I'll be surprised if he isn't pleased by anything that
shrinks and simplifies the driver. I've CC'd him.
Dave, this (small) thread begins here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53A2507F.808@2ndquadrant.com
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services