As is, the only explanation for how deadpool_postgres handles caching prepared statements I'm aware of is the discussion in #75 . Between that and looking at the source, I understand the behavior and it's fine, but:
it's hard to find
it's not a contract in the way documentation is, and relying on undocumented behavior and a four year old issue is bad practice
Better documentation - especially the information about ClientWrapper handling the caching internally - would making getting started with deadpool_postgress that much easier.
As is, the only explanation for how
deadpool_postgres
handles caching prepared statements I'm aware of is the discussion in #75 . Between that and looking at the source, I understand the behavior and it's fine, but:Better documentation - especially the information about
ClientWrapper
handling the caching internally - would making getting started withdeadpool_postgress
that much easier.