Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure
Date: 2010-09-10 04:49:16
Message-ID: 1284094156.31815.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On tor, 2010-09-09 at 16:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> You might care to go back and re-read some of the extensive prior
> threads about this, but to my mind the main thing that would justify
> inventing a separate PROCEDURE facility is if procedures were to
> execute outside the transaction system, so that they could start and
> stop transactions for themselves.

Given what the SQL standard says, a "procedure" certainly has to be
defined as syntactic sugar for "function returns void". Special
transaction handling would then have to be an additional attribute of
the procedure.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darren Duncan 2010-09-10 05:02:14 Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-09-10 04:47:27 Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure