Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Josh Berkus" <Josh(dot)Berkus(at)sun(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)
Date: 2007-10-27 12:43:17
Message-ID: 877il820ey.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

> Later:
> * procedure can manages transactions,

Personally this is the only actual feature on the list that seems to have any
point to me.

> Why new calling convention? I would to support byref variables and
> then I have to carry memory context info ... and maybe some others

I think first you have to invent something for the by-ref parameter to refer
to. We don't currently have any kind of "variables" which can be mutated. We
just have immutable datums which get passed up the query. Effectively SQL is a
functional programming language in that sense.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-10-27 12:53:59
Subject: min/max planner optimization
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-10-27 11:40:42
Subject: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group