From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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 20:26:57 |
Message-ID: | 20130125202657.GN6848@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:24:27PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what this has to do with the previous topic. Aren't a
> >> prepared statement and a portal two different things?
> >
> > Oops, thanks. Here is the right paragraph, same issue:
> >
> > If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of the
> > current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed. An unnamed portal is
> > destroyed at the end of the transaction, or as soon as the next Bind
> > statement specifying the unnamed portal as destination is issued. (Note
>
> OK. Well, that seems clear enough. I'm not sure what it has to do
> with the original complaint, though, because I don't quite understand
> the original complaint, which seems to involve not only when portals
> are destroyed but also what effect Sync messages have.
Yes, I am confused too. Unless someone replies, we can consider this
closed.
--
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 20:29:17 | Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-25 20:26:56 | Re: LATERAL, UNNEST and spec compliance |