Received: from zwerg.credativ.de (cdt1.tz-juelich.de [195.37.52.66]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1LD2Bx82170 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:02:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Michael.Meskes@credativ.de) Received: from feivel.credativ.de (feivel.credativ.de [172.26.14.7]) by zwerg.credativ.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DC07B95 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:58:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by feivel.credativ.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64ECDA602D; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:02:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:02:21 +0100 From: Michael Meskes To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FOR UPDATE is not allowed in this context Message-ID: <20010221140221.A28917@feivel.credativ.de> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org References: <8766.982717138@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <8766.982717138@sss.pgh.pa.us>; from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:58:58PM -0500 X-Archive-Number: 200102/137 X-Sequence-Number: 1094 On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:58:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > This seems to me to be a bug in ecpg: the variable ForUpdateNotAllowed > doesn't get reset between statements. If you experiment more you'll It should have been resetted at the beginning of a statement. But then it does not exist anymore in the actual release. > exist anymore ... but I think there are related bugs associated with > some other ad-hoc flags in the ecpg parser, none of which get reset at > what I would consider a reasonable place to reset them ... Which one do you think of? I agree that some of this stuff is just a hack I needed to get that check into the parser. But so far I have yet to see a bug reported on these. Except for the one we are talking about of course. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!