Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PREPARE and transactions

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PREPARE and transactions
Date: 2004-07-03 03:13:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:20:17AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2004-06-24 13:13:42 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> >
> > > This is why I proposed originally to keep the non-transactional
> > > behavior for Parse messages, but transactional for SQL PREPARE.
> > > The latter can be said to be inside the transaction and should
> > > behave like so.  I think this lowers the surprise factor.
> >
> > It seems like we are closing in on an agreement that that is what
> > should happen.
> As a client maintainer, I have no particular problem with the status quo
> (apparently like Greg and Cyril), but I can appreciate the point made in
> Jeroen's initial post in this thread, and I would not object to changing
> PREPARE to be transactional while leaving Parse messages alone. Nor do I
> have a problem with "PREPARE OR REPLACE".

Do you use libpq on your client, or the be-fe protocol directly?

AFAIK there is no way to use Parse with libpq calls ... I think this
limits it's applicability as a lot of people uses libpq

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]>)
"Sallah, I said NO camels! That's FIVE camels; can't you count?"
(Indiana Jones)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-07-03 05:45:37
Subject: Re: nested-xacts cursors (was Re: Performance with new nested-xacts code)
Previous:From: Abhijit Menon-SenDate: 2004-07-03 03:07:23
Subject: Re: PREPARE and transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group