From: | "Gerald L(dot) Gay" <glgay(at)pass(dot)korea(dot)army(dot)mil> |
---|---|
To: | <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] for row in select loop question |
Date: | 1999-03-06 03:44:05 |
Message-ID: | 010401be6783$95bd9940$9a028a8f@2isdt54.korea.army.mil |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
This is another example of why not allowing utility functions in SPI would
be a Bad Thing.
For what it's worth, I found another case in libpq where you can get a T
message without a D that my utility patch needs to handle. I have attached
the updated patch against the 6.4.2 version of
src/interfaces/libpq/fe-exec.c
Jerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com [SMTP:jwieck(at)debis(dot)com]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 3:00 AM
> To: Michael Davis
> Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] for row in select loop question
>
> >
>
> Second REVOKE and GRANT are utility statements not supported
> for prepared SPI plans and thus PL/pgSQL currently cannot
> execute them.
>
>
> Jan
>
> --
>
>
>#======================================================================#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being
>right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me.
>#
> #======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan
>Wieck) #
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fe-exec.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin Möderndorfer | 1999-03-06 08:41:50 | ER, OMT chart of a database |
Previous Message | Michael Davis | 1999-03-06 02:28:16 | Permissions problems |