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".

But for what it's worth, I strongly dislike the later proposal of making
prepared statements anonymous, and pattern matching the statement text,
especially if they reintroduce the need to quote query parameters.

Ugh.

-- ams

In response to

• Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions at 2004-06-24 17:13:42 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: PREPARE and transactions at 2004-07-03 03:07:23 from Abhijit Menon-Sen
• Re: PREPARE and transactions at 2004-07-03 03:13:51 from Alvaro Herrera
• Re: PREPARE and transactions at 2004-07-03 18:10:10 from Jeroen T. Vermeulen

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2004-07-03 02:51:56
	Subject: Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns
Previous:	From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen	Date: 2004-07-03 01:43:10
	Subject: Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions