Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
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 19:02:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaJR+qToFNWg5qqmA_FcBiEEWX_pKHKBCJg7h7RnWZc6A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-01-25 19:22:50 Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-01-25 18:59:41 Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index