Hi again,
Will do. Thanks again,
Leif
----- "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> leif wrote:
> > Thank you for precise answer. And yes, I have (at least) 2
> > connections, all named. So I am even not using the 'default'
> > connection prepared statement as you point out.
> >
> > I have looked a little further into the output of ecpg as
> > well as adding the "AT <connection>" to my statements. Adding
> > the "AT" to the prepare statement seems to have fixed the
> > named error :-). However, after that I'm not able to compile
> > my stuff on the 8.2 installation. Is there a way to 'detect'
> > (using #if .... ) whether I am using 8.2 or 8.3+ ?
>
> You could #include <pg_config.h> and check PG_VERSION_NUM.
Ah, yes.
>
> > I also tried to put the "AT <connection>" on the the
> > ALLOCATE/DEALLOCATE DESCRIPTOR statements, which was accepted
> > for the ALLOCATE, but gave an error for the DEALLOCATE. I can
> > see in the ecpg output that the "AT" is not (yet?) used for
> > these statements, so I guess that it is ok to leave them as is?
>
> I tend to agree; I'd say that descriptors are not associated with
> connections, they are something that "lives" on the client side.
> But I don't know for certain.
>
> I would say that you should leave them without AT, but it is
> weird that ALLOCATE lets you use AT without complaining.
>
> > Are all this documented somewhere ?
>
> The documentation seems to be a bit vague on these things...
> Looking at the C output and the source helps...
The "real" documentation ;-)
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
