Neil Conway writes:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:54:04PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm not sure I like that. It seems too confusing. Why not keep
it as the standard says? (After all, it is the PREPARE part that
we're adjusting, not EXECUTE.)
I think it's both, isn't it? My
Neil Conway writes:
Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
(rather than EXECUTE USING -- the effect being that prepared statements
now look more like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
(rather than EXECUTE USING -- the effect being that prepared statements
now
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:34, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
(rather than EXECUTE
Rod Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:34, Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
Regarding the syntax for EXECUTE, it occurs to me that it could be made
to be more similar to the PREPARE syntax -- i.e.
PREPARE foo(text, int) AS ...;
EXECUTE foo('a', 1);
Mike Mascari wrote:
FWIW, Oracle uses EXECUTE to execute stored procedures. It is not apart
of the SQL language, but a SQL*Plus command:
EXECUTE my_procedure();
Also with Transact SQL (i.e. MSSQL and Sybase)
Syntax
Execute a stored procedure:
[[EXEC[UTE]]
{
To expand on the Oracle implementation, the EXECUTE command in SQL*Plus
results in an anonymous pl/sql block (as opposed to a named procedure).
being sent over the wire such as the following:
begin
my_procedure();
end;
As mentioned in the previous post, the EXECUTE command is only a
SQL*Plus
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 10:00:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAICT, the syntax we are setting up with actual SQL following the
PREPARE keyword is *not* valid SQL92 nor SQL99. It would be a good
idea to look and see whether any other DBMSes implement syntax that
is directly comparable to the
Neil Conway wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 10:00:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
AFAICT, the syntax we are setting up with actual SQL following the
PREPARE keyword is *not* valid SQL92 nor SQL99. It would be a good
idea to look and see whether any other DBMSes implement syntax that
is
