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

Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Re] Re: PREPARE and transactions
Date: 2004-06-25 02:00:12
Message-ID: d233ee25ff9740f0343193d8fc2439f1@biglumber.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
 
> It seems like we are closing in on an agreement that that is what
> should happen.
 
I was originally unhappy with the current situation, but now I think
it is the best. Any changes will also cause a huge further headache
for driver/application writers, as we already have a released version
(and probably at least one more) with the current behavior. I'd be
all for making a DoesStatementExist(text) function, but changing
the behavior now may be closing the barn doors too late in the game,
and I've yet to see a totally convincing argument for a change,
considering that prepared statements are very explicitly declared
and cannot be seen outside of their own connection.
 
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200406242200
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
iD8DBQFA24ehvJuQZxSWSsgRAkP+AJ9UZD52+BHhnskdwdgHJGvxZ44KbQCggAxl
+5K2gZS37iH60UpiLgumwIU=
=kJgm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2004-06-25 03:25:21
Subject: Re: Fixing pg_dump
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-06-24 23:53:27
Subject: Re: nested xacts and phantom Xids

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