| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior |
| Date: | 2004-05-07 18:53:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200405072053.24254.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, no, I'd prefer not to make such a distinction; I'd be happy
> with SQL-level PREPARE being nontransactional. I'd be willing to put
> up with that distinction if someone shows it's needed, but so far
> there's not been a really good argument advanced for it, has there?
Has anyone reviewed the standard with regards to embedded SQL PREPARE?
It would be pretty weird if that behaved differently from the direct
SQL PREPARE. (The brief summary is that is does not roll back, but
there may be subtleties if have not found.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rick Gigger | 2004-05-07 19:03:14 | Re: pgFoundry Open For Business |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-05-07 18:34:25 | Re: COPY command - CSV files |