> Actually there is one more problem. The backend introduced the EXECUTE
> command just recently. However, this clashes with the embedded SQL
> EXECUTE command. Since both may be called just with EXECUTE <name>,
> there is no way to distinguish them.
>
> I have no idea if there's a standard about execution of a plan but
> couldn't/shouldn't it be named "EXECUTE PLAN" instead of just
> "EXECUTE"?
I know this is not really related, but wouldn't the plan be to make
ecpg actually use the backend side "execute ..." now that it is available ?
ecpg needs eighter 'execute :idvar' or 'execute id', so either idvar is a
declared variable or id a statement id. I don't know if that is something a
parser can check though :-(
For now, I would leave "exec sql execute" do the ecpg thing if that is possible.
If you want to use the backend side functionality you would need to:
exec sql prepare ex1 from 'execute id';
exec sql execute ex1;
Andreas