On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 09:44:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is this expected? If so, why? I'd expect the prepared stmt to be > > deallocated. > > prepare.c probably should have provisions for rolling back its state to > the start of a failed transaction ... but it doesn't. > > Before jumping into doing that, though, I'd want to have some > discussions about the implications for the V3 protocol's notion of > prepared statements. The protocol spec does not say anything that > would suggest that prepared statements are lost on transaction rollback, > and offhand it seems like they shouldn't be because the protocol is > lower-level than transactions.
Right now there is no distinction between a PREPARE prepared statement and a protocol-level one. If we want to have the v3proto's statements behave different from PREPARE's, it's just a matter of adding a new field into the PreparedStatement. I can do that and make them behave different if people think this is how it should be. I don't really have an opinion on whether protocol-level should behave different. What do people think? -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) Bob [Floyd] used to say that he was planning to get a Ph.D. by the "green stamp method,", namely by saving envelopes addressed to him as 'Dr. Floyd'. After collecting 500 such letters, he mused, a university somewhere in Arizona would probably grant him a degree. (Don Knuth) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
