Robert,
>> Yes, you need to send params (thus send bind message) anyway.
>> Regarding re-parsing, maybe you mixed up parse-analythis with
>> planning? Re-parse-analythis can only be avoided if you can reuse
>> named (or unnamed) parepared statements.
>
> So given this, I'm struggling to see anything wrong with the current
> wording.
ISTM that the point is not that it is wrong, but it could be more precise.
> I mean, if you say that you are reusing prepared statements,
It does not say "reuse" explicitely, it says
"prepared: use extended query protocol with prepared statements."
but the extended protocol does always "prepare" statements before
executing them, the difference are that with "-M prepared" (1) it is done
just once and (2) named so that it can be indeed reused.
Note that "extended" prepares much more statements than "prepared":-)
> someone will assume that you are avoiding preparing them repeatedly,
> which -M extended will not do ... and by the nature of that approach,
> cannot do.
Sure. At the protocol level "prepare" is slightly imprecise, and the
documentation is about the protocol used.
So I do not think a more precise wording harms. Maybe: "prepared: use
extended query protocol with REUSED named prepared statements" would be
even less slightly ambiguous.
--
Fabien.
