Re: Another 7.1 EXECUTE Question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brian Troxell <trox(at)mindspring(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Another 7.1 EXECUTE Question
Date: 2001-01-05 18:56:00
Message-ID: 10640.978720960@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Brian Troxell <trox(at)mindspring(dot)com> writes:
> I'm getting an error when forming SELECT statements using the new 7.1
> EXECUTE command. The error states, simply, that there was an unexpected
> SELECT within the EXECUTE command.

For no good reason that I can see, the original coding for EXECUTE
rejected SELECTs. While there isn't a provision for doing anything
with the value(s) returned by the SELECT, this is still pretty silly:
for example "SELECT setval('seq', n)" is useful even without looking
at the result value. So I took out that restriction a day or two ago.
As of the current snapshot, you can execute a SELECT, but the results
will be discarded (unless you do SELECT INTO).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ed Loehr 2001-01-05 19:20:26 Re: Re: Re: Test for existence of Table
Previous Message Joel Burton 2001-01-05 18:55:41 Re: RE: Using Postgres with Access 2000