Re: [HACKERS] for row in select loop question

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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