Thread: V3 protocol + DECLARE problems

(cc: -hackers as I think this has been raised there before)

It's going to be fun using anything more than very basic cursors via the
V3 protocol in the JDBC driver. DECLARE does not work with parameters
passed via a Parse/Bind combination -- which is how we currently always
pass parameters when talking V3. I'm reluctant to have two
implementations of the parameter logic for V3 (one that does direct
substitution, one that uses Bind) since that's extra unnecessary code
and a recipe for inconsistent behaviour.

Logs follow; basically this is issuing a Parse/Bind/Execute for a
parameterized DECLARE, which blows up with "no value found for parameter
1" despite there definitely being one there. (also, that error appears
on Execute, not Parse/Bind).

Any chance of getting this fixed for 7.5? Alternatively, if we can get
WITH HOLD / SCROLL behaviour in portals created by Execute (probably
means a protocol change) that works too. I don't have a runnable 7.5 on
hand to test against so it's possible this has already been fixed.

-O

> Trying to establish a protocol version 3 connection to localhost:5432
>  FE=> StartupPacket(user=oliver, database=test, client_encoding=UNICODE, DateStyle=ISO)
>  <=BE AuthenticationOk
>  <=BE ParameterStatus(client_encoding = UNICODE)
>  <=BE ParameterStatus(DateStyle = ISO, DMY)
>  <=BE ParameterStatus(is_superuser = off)
>  <=BE ParameterStatus(server_version = 7.4.1)
>  <=BE ParameterStatus(session_authorization = oliver)
>  <=BE BackendKeyData(pid=676,ckey=704988999)
>  <=BE ReadyForQuery(I)
>     compatible = 7.5
>     loglevel = 0
>     prepare threshold = 0
> getConnection returning driver[className=org.postgresql.Driver,org.postgresql.Driver@ad3ba4]
> simple execute, handler=org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Statement$StatementResultHandler@1dd7056, maxRows=0,
fetchSize=0,flags=21 
>  FE=> Parse(stmt=null,query="DECLARE c CURSOR WITH HOLD FOR SELECT typname,oid from pg_type WHERE typname LIKE
$1",oids={25})
>  FE=> Bind(stmt=null,portal=null,$1=<%>)
>  FE=> Describe(portal=null)
>  FE=> Execute(portal=null,limit=1)
>  FE=> Sync
>  <=BE ParseComplete [null]
>  <=BE BindComplete [null]
>  <=BE NoData
>  <=BE CommandStatus(DECLARE CURSOR)
>  <=BE ErrorMessage(ERROR: no value found for parameter 1
>   Location: File: execQual.c, Routine: ExecEvalParam, Line: 518
>   ServerSQLState: 42704)
> java.sql.SQLException: ERROR: no value found for parameter 1
>   Location: File: execQual.c, Routine: ExecEvalParam, Line: 518
>   ServerSQLState: 42704
>         at org.postgresql.core.v3.QueryExecutorImpl.receiveErrorResponse(QueryExecutorImpl.java:1130)
>         at org.postgresql.core.v3.QueryExecutorImpl.processResults(QueryExecutorImpl.java:933)
>         at org.postgresql.core.v3.QueryExecutorImpl.execute(QueryExecutorImpl.java:139)
>         at org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Statement.execute(AbstractJdbc2Statement.java:343)
>         at org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Statement.executeWithFlags(AbstractJdbc2Statement.java:291)
>         at org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Statement.executeUpdate(AbstractJdbc2Statement.java:246)
>         at TestDeclare.main(TestDeclare.java:11)
> SQLException: SQLState(42704)
>  <=BE NoticeResponse(WARNING: AbortTransaction and not in in-progress state
>   Location: File: xact.c, Routine: AbortTransaction, Line: 1034
>   ServerSQLState: 01000)
> SQLWarning:
>  <=BE ReadyForQuery(I)

Oliver Jowett <oliver@opencloud.com> writes:
> Logs follow; basically this is issuing a Parse/Bind/Execute for a
> parameterized DECLARE, which blows up with "no value found for parameter
> 1" despite there definitely being one there. (also, that error appears
> on Execute, not Parse/Bind).

This may be fixable --- I'm thinking that the problem has to do with not
passing down parameters from one portal to another in a situation where
they probably should be.

> Any chance of getting this fixed for 7.5?

I'm up to my keister in PITR and nested-xact issues and won't have time
to look at it soon.  Do you want to take a look and see if you can find
where the ball is getting dropped?

> Alternatively, if we can get WITH HOLD / SCROLL behaviour in portals
> created by Execute (probably means a protocol change) that works too.

This won't be salable unless we decide we really need a protocol change
to support nested xacts properly.  With the change to SAVEPOINT syntax
the motivation for that may have diminished --- in particular I doubt
that we can usefully report a nesting depth, so the urge to fool with
the Z message has diminished greatly (in my mind anyway).

I'd suggest looking into the parameter issue if you want to have
confidence in a fix being available in 7.5.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

>>Any chance of getting this fixed for 7.5?
>
>
> I'm up to my keister in PITR and nested-xact issues and won't have time
> to look at it soon.  Do you want to take a look and see if you can find
> where the ball is getting dropped?

Ok, I'll do that.

-O

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Oliver Jowett wrote:

> It's going to be fun using anything more than very basic cursors via the
> V3 protocol in the JDBC driver. DECLARE does not work with parameters
> passed via a Parse/Bind combination -- which is how we currently always
> pass parameters when talking V3. I'm reluctant to have two
> implementations of the parameter logic for V3 (one that does direct
> substitution, one that uses Bind) since that's extra unnecessary code
> and a recipe for inconsistent behaviour.

I see where you are going in the WITH HOLD case, I don't see how this
extends to scrollable cursors without other major changes as the Execute
protocol message assumes forward only operation.

Kris Jurka

Kris Jurka wrote:

> I see where you are going in the WITH HOLD case, I don't see how this
> extends to scrollable cursors without other major changes as the Execute
> protocol message assumes forward only operation.

Use FETCH, or a protocol change. If we're using DECLARE anyway, it's not
too much extra pain to teach it about FETCH too.

This is all some time away anyway, I was just verifying my initial
assumptions when I hit the DECLARE problem.

-O