Did this ever get applied? If so, I can't find it.
No, my bad, I simply forgot about it, sorry.
Will work on this now.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
Jabber:
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
Kevin Grittner ?rta:
Michael Meskes mich...@fam-meskes.de wrote:
All prior ECPG versions were fine because dynamic cursor names
were only added in 9.0. Apparently only this one place was
missed. So this is a bug in the new feature, however not such a
Michael Meskes mich...@fam-meskes.de wrote:
All prior ECPG versions were fine because dynamic cursor names
were only added in 9.0. Apparently only this one place was
missed. So this is a bug in the new feature, however not such a
major one that it warrants the complete removal IMO. I'd prefer
Kevin Grittner írta:
Michael Meskes mich...@fam-meskes.de wrote:
All prior ECPG versions were fine because dynamic cursor names
were only added in 9.0. Apparently only this one place was
missed. So this is a bug in the new feature, however not such a
major one that it warrants the
Sorry I thought Zoltan's explanation was clear enough. All prior ECPG versions
were fine because dynamic cursor names were only added in 9.0. Apparently only
this one place was missed. So this is a bug in the new feature, however not
such a major one that it warrants the complete removal IMO.
Excerpts from Michael Meskes's message of jue ago 05 05:39:46 -0400 2010:
Sorry I thought Zoltan's explanation was clear enough. All prior ECPG
versions were fine because dynamic cursor names were only added in 9.0.
Apparently only this one place was missed. So this is a bug in the new
Alvaro Herrera írta:
Excerpts from Michael Meskes's message of jue ago 05 05:39:46 -0400 2010:
Sorry I thought Zoltan's explanation was clear enough. All prior ECPG
versions were fine because dynamic cursor names were only added in 9.0.
Apparently only this one place was missed. So this
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at writes:
Alvaro Herrera Ãrta:
Since we're still in the beta phase, it makes sense to apply the fix
right now so that it appears in 9.0. No point in waiting for 9.0.1.
It boils down to the fact that Michael doesn't have too much time
and no one else knows
Michael Meskes mich...@fam-meskes.de wrote:
I'd consider this a bug.
Could you explain why? The assertions that people consider it a bug
without explanation of *why* is confusing for me.
It sounds more like a feature of the ECPG interface that people
would really like, and which has been
Hi,
attached is a patch that adds the missing feature to use
WHERE CURRENT OF :curname in UPDATE and
DELETE statements via ECPG. I used the current CVS MAIN
but also applies almost cleanly to 9.0beta4. I certainly feel that
this should be applied to 9.0 as a bugfix.
The execute.c changes were
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote:
attached is a patch that adds the missing feature
I certainly feel that this should be applied to 9.0 as a bugfix.
Those two statements seem to contradict one another. Is there some
bug manifestation beyond an unimplemented feature this fixes?
Kevin Grittner írta:
Boszormenyi Zoltan z...@cybertec.at wrote:
attached is a patch that adds the missing feature
I certainly feel that this should be applied to 9.0 as a bugfix.
Those two statements seem to contradict one another.
PostgreSQL 8.3 or so added WHERE
12 matches
Mail list logo
