Re: Named Prepared statement problems and possible solutions

On 6/8/23 10:56, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 10:31, Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info
> <mailto:jan@wi3ck.info>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/8/23 09:53, Jan Wieck wrote:
>      > On 6/8/23 09:21, Dave Cramer wrote:
>      > The server doesn't know about all the clients of the pooler, does
>     it? It
>      > has no way of telling if/when a client disconnects from the pooler.
>
>     Another problem that complicates doing it in the server is that the
>     information require to (re-)prepare a statement in a backend that
>     currently doesn't have it needs to be kept in shared memory. This
>     includes the query string itself. Doing that without shared memory in a
>     pooler that is multi-threaded or based on async-IO is much simpler and
>     allows for easy ballooning.
>
>
> I don't expect the server to re-prepare the statement. If the server
> responds with "statement doesn't exist" the client would send a prepare.

Are you proposing a new libpq protocol version?

Jan