Execute and PortalSuspended needs explicit transaction to work? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Francisco Figueiredo Jr.
Subject Execute and PortalSuspended needs explicit transaction to work?
Date
Msg-id 4223CE21.2090506@yahoo.com.br
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Execute and PortalSuspended needs explicit transaction  (Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Hi all,

I'm playing with Execute messages with a non-zero max number of rows so
that I can get some PortalSuspended messages on Npgsql.

After some testing, I could send an Execute message with 2 as the manx
number of rows. After the second execute I get the following:

portal "" does not exist
Severity: ERROR
Code: 34000


I noticed that I could only get it working if I explicitly create a
transaction.

I thought it could be some Sync() messages I was sending after the first
execute, but when I removed them, I still get the problems.

Is this by design? I mean, do I need to have an explicit transaction to
get multiple executes work when getting portalsuspended messages? Or am
I missing something?

Thanks in advance.

- --
Regards,

Francisco Figueiredo Jr.
Membro Fundador do Projeto MonoBrasil - MonoBrasil Project Founder Member
http://monobrasil.softwarelivre.org



- -------------
"Science without religion is lame;
religion without science is blind."

~                  ~ Albert Einstein

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQiPOIP7iFmsNzeXfAQKGEAgAgCoF0BhPXXaS/T2Wa97T1SD90N1hWs6j
DEfcfS2poXp+lLB64oLi1Q9gZAtzpHqDpYYsM5UA1JBtIE4X5ljOgtyKDdXhQVbM
hn0rtRGYE7TLFSowVvODsu7qrchbAQVcE+rlKd91QmO9S7ibXxXaE//xAjGKvSng
h4au7Id+dhZhjTJATFHBURV8IzJg3xK2/Kxg4BwY5p0yyUlBp+cHEv5ANBdvO1ms
QVQt5QnUHobeIFfAVZvh466n36I8UhvMVaFfCxnzgPiGv2t9fnKBUEcGJrwMghm0
emx0O3Xni6xWBdW3R/aHo+XoARfwdNiW89fm2YKxWPjGzqTZHjfjng==
=C5uE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Thread-safe snprintf() vsnprintf() and printf()
Next
From: "Francisco Figueiredo Jr."
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures?