Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior
Date: 2004-05-04 04:03:16
Message-ID: 29287.1083643396@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Right. But note that Tom wants to distinguish between statements
> created via PREPARE (which would rollback) from those created via a
> Prepare message (which wouldn't).

Actually, no, I'd prefer not to make such a distinction; I'd be happy
with SQL-level PREPARE being nontransactional. I'd be willing to put up
with that distinction if someone shows it's needed, but so far there's
not been a really good argument advanced for it, has there?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-05-04 04:50:56 Re: I need Help
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2004-05-04 02:02:50 Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior