Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
> > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Good catch. Hmm this may be a serious problem because > > > there's no way to know the row count when we use EXECUTE > > > statements. > > > > I wonder if EXECUTE could/should be made to return the appropriate > > command status string for the executed statement, instead of "EXECUTE". > > Maybe it's preferable. I agree. Command status string is pretty essential! Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
Tom Lane wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Good catch. Hmm this may be a serious problem because > > there's no way to know the row count when we use EXECUTE > > statements. > > I wonder if EXECUTE could/should be made to return the appropriate > command status string for the executed statement, instead of "EXECUTE". Maybe it's preferable. regards, Hiroshi Inoue http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:56:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> No. It would break client libraries, which only expect command tags >> INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE to be followed by counts. > And MOVE, right? Mph ... PQcmdTuples only knows about INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE. Looks like we already made this mistake once before ;-). regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is easy to determine what tag to return? Remember the discussion on > rules and that only the original tag should be returned. Is there > always one obvious tag to an execute? I would think we'd do it via the rule that we return the same thing you'd get if you directly issued the query that appears as the body of the PREPARE command. All the special cases for rules and so on seem to apply the same way if you do that. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:56:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > No. It would break client libraries, which only expect command tags > INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE to be followed by counts. And MOVE, right? Jeroen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think it should return "EXECUTE" with the counts from the commands. > > Does that make sense? > > No. It would break client libraries, which only expect command tags > INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE to be followed by counts. Also, INSERT has two > numbers associated with it, the others only one; if we allow both those > cases for EXECUTE then life gets even worse for the client library. It is easy to determine what tag to return? Remember the discussion on rules and that only the original tag should be returned. Is there always one obvious tag to an execute? -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it should return "EXECUTE" with the counts from the commands. > Does that make sense? No. It would break client libraries, which only expect command tags INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE to be followed by counts. Also, INSERT has two numbers associated with it, the others only one; if we allow both those cases for EXECUTE then life gets even worse for the client library. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
Tom Lane wrote: > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Good catch. Hmm this may be a serious problem because > > there's no way to know the row count when we use EXECUTE > > statements. > > I wonder if EXECUTE could/should be made to return the appropriate > command status string for the executed statement, instead of "EXECUTE". I think it should return "EXECUTE" with the counts from the commands. Does that make sense? -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[HACKERS] EXECUTE status (was Re: [ODBC] About server side prepare)
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Good catch. Hmm this may be a serious problem because > there's no way to know the row count when we use EXECUTE > statements. I wonder if EXECUTE could/should be made to return the appropriate command status string for the executed statement, instead of "EXECUTE". regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
