| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] prepareable statements |
| Date: | 2002-07-25 21:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20020725210024.GA24045@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:54:04PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm not sure I like that. It seems too confusing. Why not keep
> it as the standard says? (After all, it is the PREPARE part that
> we're adjusting, not EXECUTE.)
I think it's both, isn't it? My understanding of Tom's post is that the
features described by SQL92 are somewhat similar to the patch, but not
directly related.
On the other hand, if other people also find it confusing, that would be
a good justification for changing it. Personally, I think it's pretty
clear, but I'm not adamant about it.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2002-07-25 21:00:32 | Re: tuple concurrently updated |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-07-25 20:56:56 | Re: regression in CVS HEAD |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-07-26 01:17:23 | Re: COPY improvements |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-07-25 20:54:04 | Re: [PATCHES] prepareable statements |