David Welton <davidw@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> send(State, ?BIND, ["", 0, StatementName, 0, Bin1, Bin2]), >> send(State, ?EXECUTE, ["", 0, <<0:?int32>>]), >> send(State, ?CLOSE, [?PREPARED_STATEMENT, StatementName, 0]), >> send(State, ?SYNC, []), > And then the code above. So it's generating a name itself and then > destroying it once the query is done. > Perhaps this behavior is not a good idea and using the unnamed portal > would be a better idea? My point is that it *is* using the unnamed portal, AFAICS --- the ""s in the Bind and Execute commands appear to correspond to the empty strings that would select that portal. The Close on the other hand is specifying closing a prepared statement, not a portal. If you're right about the control flow around this function, then the code is generating a prepared statement, using it once, and destroying it. Which is dumb; you should instead use the unnamed-statement protocol flow, which is better optimized for that usage pattern. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
