On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 02:02:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 02:04:00PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> >> > Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
>> >> >> From the manual:
>> >> >> "An unnamed portal is destroyed at the end of the transaction"
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, all portals are destroyed at end of transaction (unless
>> >> > they're from holdable cursors). Named or not doesn't enter into it.
>> >>
>> >> We need to fix the document then.
>> >
>> > I looked into this. The text reads:
>> >
>> > If successfully created, a named prepared-statement object lasts till
>> > the end of the current session, unless explicitly destroyed. An unnamed
>> > prepared statement lasts only until the next Parse statement specifying
>> > the unnamed statement as destination is issued.
>> >
>> > While the first statement does say "named", the next sentence says
>> > "unnamed", so I am not sure we can make this any clearer.
>>
>> I'm not sure what this has to do with the previous topic. Aren't a
>> prepared statement and a portal two different things?
>
> Oops, thanks. Here is the right paragraph, same issue:
>
> If successfully created, a named portal object lasts till the end of the
> current transaction, unless explicitly destroyed. An unnamed portal is
> destroyed at the end of the transaction, or as soon as the next Bind
> statement specifying the unnamed portal as destination is issued. (Note
OK. Well, that seems clear enough. I'm not sure what it has to do
with the original complaint, though, because I don't quite understand
the original complaint, which seems to involve not only when portals
are destroyed but also what effect Sync messages have.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company