From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: explain doesn't work with execute using |
Date: | 2008-06-01 15:55:52 |
Message-ID: | 21755.1212335752@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2008/6/1 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> This seems to be correctable with a one-line patch: make SPI_cursor_open
>> set the CONST flag on parameters it puts into the portal (attached).
>> I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea or not --- comments?
> We can do less invasive patch - it's much more ugly, but don't change
> any other behave. I am afraid, so one-line patch can change behave of
> explain statements in some cases where using variables is correct.
If you can name a case where that is correct, then I'll worry about
this, but offhand I don't see one.
What do you think a "less invasive" patch would be, anyway? I don't
buy that, say, having SPI_cursor_open_with_args set the flag but
SPI_cursor_open not do so is any safer. There is no difference between
the two as to what might get executed, so if there's a problem then
both would be at risk.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Hodges | 2008-06-01 15:58:59 | Re: Core team statement on replication in PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-06-01 15:43:48 | Re: explain doesn't work with execute using |