Dear Horiguchi-san,
Thank you for replying!
> (Maybe by consulting the code.. Anyway, )
I noticed the patch cannot be applied...
> The follwoing commands don't.
> DESCRIBE
> DEALLOCATE
> DECLARE CURSOR .. FOR
> CREATE TABLE AS EXECUTE
I'm not sure about `CREATE TABLE AS EXECUTE`(I'll check your new thread), but at least,
I think `DECLARE CURSOR` uses linked connection.
The following .pgc code:
```pgc
EXEC SQL CONNECT TO postgres AS connection1;
EXEC SQL CONNECT TO template1 AS connection2;
EXEC SQL SET CONNECTION TO connection2;
EXEC SQL AT connection1 DECLARE sql STATEMENT;
EXEC SQL PREPARE sql FROM "SELECT current_database()";
EXEC SQL DECLARE cur CURSOR FOR sql;
EXEC SQL OPEN cur;
```
will become like this(picked only last two lines):
```c
/* declare cur cursor for $1 */
{ ECPGdo(__LINE__, 0, 1, "connection1", 0, ECPGst_normal, "declare cur cursor for $1",
ECPGt_char_variable,(ECPGprepared_statement("connection1", "sql", __LINE__)),(long)1,(long)1,(1)*sizeof(char),
ECPGt_NO_INDICATOR, NULL , 0L, 0L, 0L, ECPGt_EOIT, ECPGt_EORT);}
```
Of cause, according to [1], the connection is overwritten by check_declared_list()
and it's saved to this->connection.
Please tell me if I misunderstand something.
> I'm not sure how ALLOCATE DESCRIPTOR should behave. Without "AT conn"
> attached, the descriptor is recorded being bound to the connection
> "null"(or nothing). GET DESCRIPTOR for the statement stmt tries to
> find a descriptor with the same name but bound to c1, which does not
> exist.
Right. lookup_descriptor() will throw mmerror().
> I don't come up with an idea how to "fix" it (or I don't find what is
> the sane behavior for this feature..), but anyway, I find it hard to
> find what to do next from the warning. It might be helpful that the
> warning shows the connection.
I think this phenomenon is quite normal, not bug. When users use connection-associated
prepared_name, it implies using AT clause.
However, I perfectly agree that it's very difficult for users to find a problem from the message.
I will try to add information to it in the next patch.
> Honestly, I don't like the boilerplate. There's no reason for handling
> connection at the level. It seems to me that it is better that the
> rule ECPGDescribe passes the parameters force_indicator and stmt name
> up to the parent rule-component (stmt:ECPGDescribe) , then the parent
> generates the function-call string.
You're right. This is very stupid program. I'll combine them into one.
> The test portion bloats the patch so it would be easier to read if
> that part is separated from the code part.
Right, I'll separate and attach again few days. Sorry for inconvenience;-(.
[1]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/ecpg.trailer#L345
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
