Dear Zhang,
# I resend the email
Thank you for reporting a bug. I didn't care about this case.
>> We should free p->cursor_name before p->cursor_name =
>> ecpg_strdup(cursor_name, lineno).
I'm wondering whether this approach is correct or not.
If your patch is committed, in your example, any operation for cur1 will not be accepted.
My idea is changing ecpg_update_declare_statement() for permitting one-to-many relation between a declared name and
cursors.
An example is as below:
p = ecpg_find_declared_statement(declared_name);
if (p && p->cursor_name == cursor_name)
p->cursor_name = ecpg_strdup(cursor_name, lineno);
Do you have any suggestions or comments for this?
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
Fujitsu LIMITED
