Re: libpq and prepared statements progress for 8.0

David Wheeler wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2004, at 1:09 PM, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>
>> Well, obviously. I haven't modified the backend code to accept
>> 'unknown' in PREPARE..
>
>
> Right, and that's what we're looking for.
>
>> My point was the client does *not* need to know the type inferred by
>> the PREPARE in the 'unknown' case to make use of the resulting
>> statement. It can pass all parameters as text and use the type
>> inference that happens on EXECUTE -- as is happening in the EXECUTE
>> quoted above.
>
>
> Yes, that's fine, but it's PREPARE that's at issue here, not EXECUTE.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

Tom reckons that PREPARE (at the SQL level) taking unknown types is not
useful as there is no feedback mechanism along the lines of the V3
protocol Describe messages to let the client find out what types were
inferred by the PREPARE.

I am saying this doesn't matter as the client can still use the
resulting statement just fine without knowing the types. So allowing
'unknown' in PREPARE *is* useful.

Not that I'm volunteering to implement it, though -- the JDBC driver
does not need this functionality and I'm way too short on time anyway :(

-O