| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Where are we on stored procedures? |
| Date: | 2005-02-25 13:07:53 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A7632@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 1. Executing outside the database engine, and therefore being able to
> start/commit transactions. (This is *fundamentally* different from
our
> current concept of functions, and I think that any implementation that
> tries to gloss over the difference will be doomed to failure.)
Back in the early days of nested transactions, you could begin/commit
while within a transaction...they could be pushed and popped off of a
stack.
Supposing you could do that once again, would there be any reason why a
SP should be extra-transactional?
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-02-25 13:38:50 | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
| Previous Message | Nicolai Tufar | 2005-02-25 11:08:10 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Repleacement for src/port/snprintf.c |