> Okay. So you mean to change DESCRIBE and DEALLOCATE to be able to
> handle cached connection names, as of [1]? For [DE]ALLOCATE, I agree
Yes, at least technically. I think DESCRIBE should accept the cached
connection name, although it won't really matter.
> that it could be a good thing. declare.pgc seems to rely on that
> already but the tests are incorrect as I mentioned in [2]. For
> DESCRIBE, that provides data about a result set, I find the
> assignment
> of a connection a bit strange, and even if this would allow the use
> of
> the same statement name for multiple connections, it seems to me that
> there is a risk of breaking existing applications. There should not
> be that many, so perhaps that's fine anyway.
I don't think we'd break anything given that DECLARE STATEMENT is new.
Also please keep in mind that you can use EXEC SQL AT ... DESCRIBE ...;
already anyway. Again, not very meaningful but why should we accept a
connection one way but not the other?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
