"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm leaning slightly to the fold-it-into-PQprepare way, but am by >> no means set on that. Comments anyone?
> As a heavy user of libpq via DBD::Pg, +1 to folding in. Another thought: I looked into the protocol description and was reminded that Describe Statement actually returns both ParameterDescription and RowDescription, ie, both the list of parameter datatypes and the list of column names and types that will be returned by the eventual execution of the statement. So another theory about how this ought to work is that PQprepare's result PGresult ought to carry the column name/type info where PQfname and PQftype can get them, and then we'd have to have two new PGresult-inspection functions to pull out the separately stored parameter-datatype info. This seems much cleaner than overloading the meaning of PQftype, but OTOH it's yet a few more cycles added to the execution cost of PQprepare. Anyone have a need to get the result type info during PQprepare? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings