On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:36:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> IIRC, the conclusion of our earlier debate about backend PREPARE/EXECUTE
> syntax was that since it was not implementing exactly the behavior
> specified for embedded SQL (and couldn't, not being an embedded
> operation) it would be better to deliberately avoid using exactly the
> same syntax. See thread starting at
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-07/msg00814.php
I'm awfully sorry that I missed this thread. But I do not really
understand the problem. If we cannot be exactly as specified why aren't
we coming close? As it stands now I have to implement my own
PREPARE/EXECUTE in ecpg and the syntax does clash with the backend one.
This would force me to not allow the backend's prepare/execute at all in
embedded sql but use the work around we've been using ever since. But
the backend implementation certainly is better and faster, so I'd love
to switch.
> We can revisit that decision if you like, but you must convince us that
> it was wrong, not just say "of course we should change it".
Again, please take my apologies, since I missed the discussion. I'm so
swarmed with work and emails that I have to delete some by just looking
at the subject and appearantly I didn't see the relevance of this one.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
