From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Couple of issues with prepared FETCH commands |
Date: | 2017-03-09 18:51:04 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoad6r273YNn2Rtia=+oCmgDqm2NsW+495ajXG-D_kv5=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Andrew Gierth
>> <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
>>> But the problem that actually came up is this: if you do the PQprepare
>>> before the named cursor has actually been opened, then everything works
>>> _up until_ the first event, such as a change to search_path, that forces
>>> a revalidation; and at that point it fails with the "must not change
>>> result type" error _even if_ the cursor always has exactly the same
>>> result type. This happens because the initial prepare actually stored
>>> NULL for plansource->resultDesc, since the cursor name wasn't found,
>>> while on the revalidate, when the cursor obviously does exist, it gets
>>> the actual result type.
>>>
>>> It seems a bit of a "gotcha" to have it fail in this case when the
>>> result type isn't actually being checked in other cases.
>
>> To me, that sounds like a bug.
>
> Yeah --- specifically, I wonder why we allow the reference to an
> unrecognized cursor name to succeed. Or were you defining the bug
> differently?
I'm not sure whether that's a bug or not. What I was defining as a
bug is calling a change from "we don't know what the result type will
be" to "we know that the result type will be X" as a change in the
result type. That's really totally inaccurate.
I've never really understood errors about changing the result type.
As a user, I assumed those were unavoidable implementation artifacts,
on the theory that they were annoying and therefore the developers
would have eliminated such messages had it been practical. As a
developer, I've never gotten around to understanding whether that
theory was correct.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2017-03-09 18:52:32 | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |
Previous Message | Peter van Hardenberg | 2017-03-09 18:50:55 | Re: SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL |