Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thinking about this, it occurs to me that there's no good reason why > we couldn't allow parameter symbols ($n) to be considered type UNKNOWN > initially.
Good idea. > This form of PREPARE would presumably need some way of reporting back > the types it had determined for the symbols; anyone have a feeling for > the appropriate API for that? Why would this be needed? Couldn't we rely on the client programmer to know that '$n is of type foo', and then pass the appropriately-typed data to EXECUTE? If we *do* need an API for this, ISTM that by adding protocol-level support for PREPARE/EXECUTE, this shouldn't be too difficult to do (and analogous to the way we pass back type information for SELECT results). It would also allow us to side-step the parser for EXECUTE parameters, which was something that a few people had requested earlier. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])