| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: prepareable statements |
| Date: | 2002-07-31 22:24:20 |
| Message-ID: | 1028154261.4116.40.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> Peter objected to the EXECUTE syntax, whereas Rod Taylor said it was
> good. Not really sure which way to go...
Why I like Execute:
CALL is for use with functions, so they're different (non-conflicting)
commands.
Works like a function call -- but it's not a function. It implies your
running something that has been prepared or compiled. You compile the
source (etc.), then execute the binary.
You prepare the statement, then execute the result.
Lastly, Perl (DBI) uses execute(args) for a prepared statement so it's
somewhat familiar for a large group.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-07-31 23:09:12 | Re: int64 timestamp patch for contrib/pg_controldata |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-31 22:09:03 | Re: lock listing |