From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PREPARE and transactions |
Date: | 2004-07-03 03:13:51 |
Message-ID: | 20040703031351.GA5280@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:20:17AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> At 2004-06-24 13:13:42 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> >
> > > This is why I proposed originally to keep the non-transactional
> > > behavior for Parse messages, but transactional for SQL PREPARE.
> > > The latter can be said to be inside the transaction and should
> > > behave like so. I think this lowers the surprise factor.
> >
> > It seems like we are closing in on an agreement that that is what
> > should happen.
>
> As a client maintainer, I have no particular problem with the status quo
> (apparently like Greg and Cyril), but I can appreciate the point made in
> Jeroen's initial post in this thread, and I would not object to changing
> PREPARE to be transactional while leaving Parse messages alone. Nor do I
> have a problem with "PREPARE OR REPLACE".
Do you use libpq on your client, or the be-fe protocol directly?
AFAIK there is no way to use Parse with libpq calls ... I think this
limits it's applicability as a lot of people uses libpq
(unsurprisingly).
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Sallah, I said NO camels! That's FIVE camels; can't you count?"
(Indiana Jones)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-07-03 05:45:37 | Re: nested-xacts cursors (was Re: Performance with new nested-xacts code) |
Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2004-07-03 03:07:23 | Re: PREPARE and transactions |