Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal
Date
Msg-id 20130125202657.GN6848@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:24:27PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct  1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> >> > Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
> >> >> >> From the manual:
> >> >> >> "An unnamed portal is destroyed at the end of the transaction"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, all portals are destroyed at end of transaction (unless
> >> >> > they're from holdable cursors).  Named or not doesn't enter into it.
> >> >>
> >> >> We need to fix the document then.
> >> >
> >> > I looked into this.  The text reads:
> >> >
> >> >         If successfully created, a named prepared-statement object lasts till
> >> >         the end of the current session, unless explicitly destroyed.  An unnamed
> >> >         prepared statement lasts only until the next Parse statement specifying
> >> >         the unnamed statement as destination is issued.
> >> >
> >> > While the first statement does say "named", the next sentence says
> >> > "unnamed", so I am not sure we can make this any clearer.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what this has to do with the previous topic.  Aren't a
> >> prepared statement and a portal two different things?
> >
> > Oops, thanks.  Here is the right paragraph, same issue:
> >
> >     If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of the
> >     current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed.  An unnamed portal is
> >     destroyed at the end of the transaction, or as soon as the next Bind
> >     statement specifying the unnamed portal as destination is issued.  (Note
> 
> OK.  Well, that seems clear enough.  I'm not sure what it has to do
> with the original complaint, though, because I don't quite understand
> the original complaint, which seems to involve not only when portals
> are destroyed but also what effect Sync messages have.

Yes, I am confused too.  Unless someone replies, we can consider this
closed.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: LATERAL, UNNEST and spec compliance
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal