| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 17:59:39 |
| Message-ID: | 200212201759.gBKHxdV19973@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
It is easy to determine what tag to return? Remember the discussion on
rules and that only the original tag should be returned. Is there
always one obvious tag to an execute?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2002-12-20 18:02:39 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-20 17:56:55 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeroen T. Vermeulen | 2002-12-20 18:02:39 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-20 17:56:55 | Re: EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare) |