> The interpretation of the standard in the above way (DECLARE is declarative, > ...
It's not just interpretation, but also a regression if we were to change this. > The uniqueness problem can only be solved with modifying > the runtime library to keep track of the cursor names in the client. > It would ruin the declarative nature of DECLARE but would increase > compatibility with Informix, and we would also need to implement > correct "FREE cursorname" behaviour, too. Which would also bring > the consequence that the ECPG client library would need to > forbid cursors and prepared statements with the same name as > "FREE" can also free cursors and prepared statements. True. > I think the current behaviour is the best we could achieve > while keeping close standard conformance. I think we should make the error message/documentation a little bit clearer as people have stumbled over it. Having said that couldn't we keep the statement declarative only for statements that do not carry a variable? This will not break any onld program and besides using a variable that doesn't exist, because you're outside a function doesn't make sense either. This is probably something for 9.1 though if it indeed works. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ 179140304, AIM/Yahoo/Skype michaelmeskes, Jabber mes...@jabber.org VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
