From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal |
Date: | 2013-01-25 18:28:48 |
Message-ID: | 20130125182848.GE6848@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> >> From the manual:
> >> "An unnamed portal is destroyed at the end of the transaction"
> >
> > Actually, all portals are destroyed at end of transaction (unless
> > they're from holdable cursors). Named or not doesn't enter into it.
>
> We need to fix the document then.
I looked into this. The text reads:
If successfully created, a named prepared-statement object lasts till
the end of the current session, unless explicitly destroyed. An unnamed
prepared statement lasts only until the next Parse statement specifying
the unnamed statement as destination is issued.
While the first statement does say "named", the next sentence says
"unnamed", so I am not sure we can make this any clearer.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-25 18:33:12 | Re: LATERAL, UNNEST and spec compliance |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-25 18:17:20 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |