Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoaJR+qToFNWg5qqmA_FcBiEEWX_pKHKBCJg7h7RnWZc6A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Ответы Re: Question regarding Sync message and unnamed portal  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Doc patch, normalize search_path in index
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables