On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:20:17AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2004-06-24 13:13:42 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> > > This is why I proposed originally to keep the non-transactional
> > > behavior for Parse messages, but transactional for SQL PREPARE.
> > > The latter can be said to be inside the transaction and should
> > > behave like so. I think this lowers the surprise factor.
> > It seems like we are closing in on an agreement that that is what
> > should happen.
> As a client maintainer, I have no particular problem with the status quo
> (apparently like Greg and Cyril), but I can appreciate the point made in
> Jeroen's initial post in this thread, and I would not object to changing
> PREPARE to be transactional while leaving Parse messages alone. Nor do I
> have a problem with "PREPARE OR REPLACE".
Do you use libpq on your client, or the be-fe protocol directly?
AFAIK there is no way to use Parse with libpq calls ... I think this
limits it's applicability as a lot of people uses libpq
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Sallah, I said NO camels! That's FIVE camels; can't you count?"
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2004-07-03 05:45:37|
|Subject: Re: nested-xacts cursors (was Re: Performance with new nested-xacts code)|
|Previous:||From: Abhijit Menon-Sen||Date: 2004-07-03 03:07:23|
|Subject: Re: PREPARE and transactions|