| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A problem presentaion about ECPG, DECLARE STATEMENT |
| Date: | 2019-09-27 18:14:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20190927181440.GM31412@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 01:12:17PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Moreover, I've been wondering about the behavior detail given in the
> table at
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/ecpg-sql-declare-statement.html>.
> In scenario 3, the declare statement says con1 but the subsequent
> dynamic statement says con2, and as a result of that, con1 is used.
> This is not intuitive, I'd say, but given that there is no indication of
> where this statement came from or whose idea it follows, it's unclear
> how to evaluate that.
FYI, I was totally confused by this also when researching this for the
PG 12 release notes. I am glad we are going to redo it for PG 13.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2019-09-27 18:24:10 | Consider low startup cost in add_partial_path |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2019-09-27 18:01:11 | Re: recovery starting when backup_label exists, but not recovery.signal |