Kris Jurka wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>
>
>>What about when we prepare a statement with a null parameter, then later
>>use it with a non-null parameter? There is some protocol code needed
>>here to get the inferred types back.
>>
>>We currently break in the case where parameter types change between
>>executions, but that's more easily fixable since we have all the
>>necessary information already available.
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure I'm willing to make that distinction, they seem like the same
> thing to me. If we fixed the second case and found the solution to the
> first intractable then you could make the case to require typed nulls, but
> since the second case is broken that argument doesn't carry a lot of
> weight with me.
It's not unfixable, it just means there is more work required to fix the
existing brokenness.
-O