On 11/16/24 03:15, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
Στις 16/11/24 12:55, ο/η Max Ulidtko έγραψε:
Greetings, group!
I'm trying to understand a low-level issue. Am evaluating a new client
library for Postgres; it's not particularly popular / mainstream, and
as I've understood so far, sports an independent implementation of PG
binary protocol.
The issue I'm hitting with it is exemplified by server logs like this:
2024-11-16 10:28:19.927 UTC [46] LOG: statement: SET client_encoding =
'UTF8';SET client_min_messages TO WARNING;
2024-11-16 10:28:19.928 UTC [46] LOG: execute <unnamed>: CREATE VIEW
public.foobar (alg, hash) AS VALUES ('md5', $1);
At least for SQL level prepared statements the statement has to be one of :
|SELECT|, |INSERT|, |UPDATE|, |DELETE|, |MERGE|, or |VALUES|
|so CREATE is not valid, and I guess the extended protocol prepared
statements aint no different in this regard.
It would seem so. Using psycopg:
import psycopg
from psycopg import sql
con = psycopg.connect("postgresql://postgres:postgres@127.0.0.1:5432/test")
cur = con.cursor()
cur.execute("CREATE VIEW public.foobar (alg, hash) AS VALUES ('md5',
%s)", ['test'])
IndeterminateDatatype: could not determine data type of parameter $1
cur.execute(sql.SQL("CREATE VIEW public.foobar (alg, hash) AS VALUES
('md5', {})").format(sql.Literal('test')))
con.commit()
cur.execute("select * from foobar")
cur.fetchone()
('md5', 'test')
|
2024-11-16 10:28:19.928 UTC [46] DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
'test-param-value'
2024-11-16 10:28:19.928 UTC [46] ERROR: there is no parameter $1 at
character 57
Of course, I /am/ passing a value for parameter $1; and I can trace
that the client lib sends it out on the wire as expected. (Attaching
packet captures.)
Heck, even the PG server itself says, DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
'test-param-value' — so it sees the parameter! But then, immediately
unsees it.
Am I being hit by a PG bug? Is this a known issue?
I'd retested with master version of that client library, and against 6
latest major versions of PostgreSQL server (12 throughout to 17). No
difference across versions spotted; the result is consistently error
42P02.
Is the client library doing something wrong? How can the server claim
there's no parameter $1 immediately after logging its value it has
received?
I did minify a 100-line SSCCE that reproduces the issue and can be shared.
Any advice, or pointers on what to check next besides delving into PG
source, I'd greatly appreciate. Thanks in advance.
Max
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
