| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brian Troxell <trox(at)mindspring(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Another 7.1 EXECUTE Question |
| Date: | 2001-01-05 18:56:00 |
| Message-ID: | 10640.978720960@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Brian Troxell <trox(at)mindspring(dot)com> writes:
> I'm getting an error when forming SELECT statements using the new 7.1
> EXECUTE command. The error states, simply, that there was an unexpected
> SELECT within the EXECUTE command.
For no good reason that I can see, the original coding for EXECUTE
rejected SELECTs. While there isn't a provision for doing anything
with the value(s) returned by the SELECT, this is still pretty silly:
for example "SELECT setval('seq', n)" is useful even without looking
at the result value. So I took out that restriction a day or two ago.
As of the current snapshot, you can execute a SELECT, but the results
will be discarded (unless you do SELECT INTO).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ed Loehr | 2001-01-05 19:20:26 | Re: Re: Re: Test for existence of Table |
| Previous Message | Joel Burton | 2001-01-05 18:55:41 | Re: RE: Using Postgres with Access 2000 |