From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] prepareable statements |
Date: | 2002-07-23 15:47:57 |
Message-ID: | 1027439278.6596.36.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) writes:
> > Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
> > to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
>
> > PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
>
> > EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
>
> > (rather than EXECUTE USING -- the effect being that prepared statements
> > now look more like function calls on a syntactical level, which I think
> > is okay.)
>
> Hmm, maybe *too* much like a function call. Is there any risk of a
> conflict with syntax that we might want to use to invoke stored
> procedures? If not, this is fine with me.
Stored procedures would use PERFORM would they not?
I like the function syntax. It looks and acts like a temporary 'sql'
function.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2002-07-23 16:33:21 | Re: contrib/ltree for 7.2 or 7.3 ? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-23 15:42:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Demo patch for DROP COLUMN |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-07-23 16:46:15 | Re: [PATCHES] prepareable statements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-23 15:42:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Demo patch for DROP COLUMN |