|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: libpq and prepared statements progress for 8.0|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> writes:
> At 2004-09-20 11:02:50 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>> (2) What about discovering the actually resolved parameter types?
> Do you have any suggestions?
It depends on whether you think that PQprepare should bundle the
Describe Statement operation or not. You can make a good argument
either way: (a) for apps or drivers that don't need to find out the
actual arg types, bundling in the Describe would be a waste of cycles;
but (b) if you need the Describe then it's a loss to have to spend an
extra network round trip to get the results. Neither of these overheads
is compellingly large, though.
If you want it unbundled then a separate function is easy enough,
PGresult * PQdescribeStatement(PGconn *conn,
const char *stmtName,
where *paramTypes receives a pointer to a malloc'd array (caller
to free after use); or null on failure. The PGresult would just
be used to convey success/failure.
If you want it bundled, perhaps add output parameters defined
similarly to the above to PQprepare.
It'd be possible to handle both cases in PQprepare: add the out
parameters, but say that passing NULL for them indicates the Describe
step is not wanted. I dunno if that's too complicated.
You had mentioned wanting to support async operation. We couldn't very
reasonably support async operation with separate output parameters ---
it would be a lot cleaner if the param type list were embedded in the
PGresult instead, so that PQgetResult would be sufficient. I understand
your distaste for multiplexing the use of the PGresult fields, but still
I think it would be most sensible to define PQnfields() and PQftype()
as the way to extract the information from the PGresult if we go that
way. We could invent a new PQresultStatus, say PGRES_PREPARE_OK,
as a way to distinguish a PGresult of this kind from the normal
If you prefer this last case then I think the cleanest approach is just
to automatically bundle the Describe operation into PQprepare. You
could imagine adding a boolean to PQprepare's param list to specify
whether you care about getting valid parameter type info back or not,
but I think that looks way too much like a wart.
If you need more options, I can probably think of some ;-)
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2004-09-20 17:29:01||Re: No parameters support in "create user"?|
|Previous Message||Andre||2004-09-20 17:08:39||Re: schema level variables and deferrable unique constraints|
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2004-09-20 17:35:56||Re: French translation updates for 7.4 and 7.5|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2004-09-20 17:05:40||Re: libpq and prepared statements progress for 8.0|