Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior
Date: 2004-05-01 01:44:52
Message-ID: 9112.1083375892@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Is this expected?  If so, why?  I'd expect the prepared stmt to be
> deallocated.

prepare.c probably should have provisions for rolling back its state to
the start of a failed transaction ... but it doesn't.

Before jumping into doing that, though, I'd want to have some
discussions about the implications for the V3 protocol's notion of
prepared statements.  The protocol spec does not say anything that
would suggest that prepared statements are lost on transaction rollback,
and offhand it seems like they shouldn't be because the protocol is
lower-level than transactions.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-01 02:10:50
Subject: Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ...
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-05-01 01:22:54
Subject: Re: Plan for feature freeze?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group