Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Thinking about this, it occurs to me that there's no good reason why
> we couldn't allow parameter symbols ($n) to be considered type UNKNOWN
> initially.
Good idea.
> This form of PREPARE would presumably need some way of reporting back
> the types it had determined for the symbols; anyone have a feeling for
> the appropriate API for that?
Why would this be needed? Couldn't we rely on the client programmer to
know that '$n is of type foo', and then pass the appropriately-typed
data to EXECUTE?
If we *do* need an API for this, ISTM that by adding protocol-level
support for PREPARE/EXECUTE, this shouldn't be too difficult to do
(and analogous to the way we pass back type information for SELECT
results). It would also allow us to side-step the parser for EXECUTE
parameters, which was something that a few people had requested
earlier.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
