|
Tom,
> > Is it an issue if I use the same name for a prepared statement and the server cursor? I mean:
> From memory, I think those share the same "portal" namespace.
Can you please elaborate?
Is it supported to do:
PQprepare(pgConn, "cu1", "declare
cu1 cursor for ... ", ... )
PQexecPrepared(pgConn, "cu1", ... )
?
So far this has always worked.
Seb
From: Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 7:36 PM To: Sebastien Flaesch <sebastien.flaesch@xxxxxxx> Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: prepared statement "cu1" already exists (but it does not) EXTERNAL: Do not click links or open attachments if you do not recognize the sender.
Sebastien Flaesch <sebastien.flaesch@xxxxxxx> writes: > I understand that the whole TX is aborted with PostgreSQL, and probably the deallocate is useless since stmt was prepared inside the TX? As you can quickly discover with some manual experimentation, both PREPARE and DEALLOCATE are nontransactional, in the sense that if they succeed then the prepared statement will exist (or not) even if the surrounding transaction block is later rolled back. This is pretty weird, and undocumented I think, in terms of their role as SQL statements. It makes a little more sense if you think about the equivalent wire-protocol-level operations, which are meant to be used by low-level client code that may not be aware of whether there is a transaction block in progress. > Is it an issue if I use the same name for a prepared statement and the server cursor? I mean: >From memory, I think those share the same "portal" namespace. regards, tom lane |
