Neil Conway writes:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:54:04PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I'm not sure I like that. It seems too confusing. Why not keep
> > it as the standard says? (After all, it is the PREPARE part that
> > we're adjusting, not EXECUTE.)
>
> I think it's both, isn't it? My
Neil Conway writes:
> Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
> to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
>
> PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
>
> EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
>
> (rather than EXECUTE USING -- the effect being that prepared statements
> now look more
To expand on the Oracle implementation, the EXECUTE command in SQL*Plus
results in an anonymous pl/sql block (as opposed to a named procedure).
being sent over the wire such as the following:
begin
my_procedure();
end;
As mentioned in the previous post, the EXECUTE command is only a
SQL*Plus
Mike Mascari wrote:
> FWIW, Oracle uses EXECUTE to execute stored procedures. It is not apart
> of the SQL language, but a SQL*Plus command:
>
> EXECUTE my_procedure();
>
Also with Transact SQL (i.e. MSSQL and Sybase)
Syntax
Execute a stored procedure:
[[EXEC[UTE]]
{
[@
Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> > > Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
> > > to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
> >
> > > PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
> >
> > > EX
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> > Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
> > to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
>
> > PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
>
> > EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
>
> > (rather t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
> to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
> PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
> EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
> (rather than EXECUTE USING -- the effect being that prepared statements
Neil Conway wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 10:00:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>AFAICT, the syntax we are setting up with actual SQL following the
>>PREPARE keyword is *not* valid SQL92 nor SQL99. It would be a good
>>idea to look and see whether any other DBMSes implement syntax that
>>
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 10:00:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT, the syntax we are setting up with actual SQL following the
> PREPARE keyword is *not* valid SQL92 nor SQL99. It would be a good
> idea to look and see whether any other DBMSes implement syntax that
> is directly comparable to the
