| From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE |
| Date: | 2021-07-29 09:22:37 |
| Message-ID: | 988c85d36a093f408d0537e97b3e4f7f83138b6b.camel@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
All,
> between DECLARE and the past queries qualify as an open item. I am
> adding Michael Meskes in CC. I got to wonder how much of a
> compatibility break it would be for DEALLOCATE and DESCRIBE to handle
> EXEC SQL AT in a way more consistent than DECLARE, even if these are
> bounded to a result set, and not a connection.
I just wanted to let you know that I'm well aware of this thread but
need to get through my backlog before I can comment. Sorry for the
delay.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wangzk.fnstxz@fujitsu.com | 2021-07-29 09:23:46 | Doc: Fixed the result of the bit_count example |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-07-29 09:11:13 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |