From: | "Nikolay Samokhvalov" <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE DATABASE |
Date: | 2006-08-03 22:20:42 |
Message-ID: | e431ff4c0608031520h10969b76w8301386551719d43@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thanks. 'connect to' cannot be sent to server as plain text, surely.
I'm stupid :-(
On 8/4/06, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/06, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > BTW, difference vanishes due to expression power of SQL -
> > > it supports session comands in the same context as DDL commands and
> > > data manipulation stmts (SQL:200n, 4.33.2.5 'SQL-connection
> > > statements').
> >
> > Sorry, I already see my failure. It is in the fact that Postgres
> > doesn't support that connection statements yet (but some connection
> > things are supported - like changing the CURRENT_ROLE).
> >
> > So, my previous message is interesting only from theoretical point of
> > view. I always try to thing in the manner of SQL standard or use
> > knowledge from books/university ...
> >
> > But the logic is clear, isn't it? Connection is not client operation.
>
> I'd read 4.39 differently which seems to imply that the SQL-client handles
> the connection statements.
>
--
Best regards,
Nikolay
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Sidney-Woollett | 2006-08-03 22:34:07 | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-08-03 22:06:10 | Re: CREATE DATABASE |