| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| Date: | 2002-12-20 17:56:55 |
| Message-ID: | 23639.1040407015@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I think it should return "EXECUTE" with the counts from the commands.
> Does that make sense?
No. It would break client libraries, which only expect command tags
INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE to be followed by counts. Also, INSERT has two
numbers associated with it, the others only one; if we allow both those
cases for EXECUTE then life gets even worse for the client library.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-20 17:59:39 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-20 17:46:39 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-20 17:59:39 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-20 17:46:39 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |