| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "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>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE |
| Date: | 2021-07-06 08:04:15 |
| Message-ID: | YOQOf+1EgOTpudkW@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 04:58:03PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have been chewing on this comment and it took me some time to
> understand what you meant here. It is true that the ecpglib part, aka
> all the routines you are quoting above, don't rely at all on the
> connection names. However, the preprocessor warnings generated by
> drop_descriptor() and lookup_descriptor() seem useful to me to get
> informed when doing incorrect descriptor manipulations, say on
> descriptors that refer to incorrect object names. So I would argue
> for keeping these.
By the way, as DECLARE is new as of v14, I think that the interactions
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-06 08:07:53 | Re: Can a child process detect postmaster death when in pg_usleep? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-06 07:58:03 | Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE |