From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Felipe Schnack <felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXECUTE problems |
Date: | 2002-11-22 19:21:00 |
Message-ID: | 26270.1037992860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Felipe Schnack <felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br> writes:
> I think it should... after all, why you can use DEFAULT in an normal
> insert but you can't in an prepared insert statement?
PREPARE isn't specific to INSERT statements. Even when you use it for
one, it's not very obvious how to assign a default value to the PREPARE
parameters; in any but the most trivial cases, there's not a one-for-one
correspondence between PREPARE parameters and target columns that might
(or might not) have defaults.
> I'm asking this because I'm implementing methods to support the new
> DEFAULT keyword in pgsql 7.3 for the JDBC driver... but if I can't use
> it in prepared sqls, a great deal of it usefulness will be shortened...
PREPAREing a query as trivial as an INSERT ... VALUES is largely a
waste of time anyway. So I cannot get excited about this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Swinth | 2002-11-22 19:26:06 | Re: Unwanted Log Entries |
Previous Message | Don Isgitt | 2002-11-22 19:14:26 | Re: Lack of use of indexes |