Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior
Date
Msg-id 200405072053.24254.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Weird prepared stmt behavior  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Actually, no, I'd prefer not to make such a distinction; I'd be happy
> with SQL-level PREPARE being nontransactional.  I'd be willing to put
> up with that distinction if someone shows it's needed, but so far
> there's not been a really good argument advanced for it, has there?

Has anyone reviewed the standard with regards to embedded SQL PREPARE?  
It would be pretty weird if that behaved differently from the direct 
SQL PREPARE.  (The brief summary is that is does not roll back, but 
there may be subtleties if have not found.)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY command - CSV files
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: psql 7.3.4 disagrees with NATURAL CROSS JOIN