2010/9/4 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Also as mentioned upthread there are effective workarounds if you poke
>>> around a bit.  This is a FAQ, and there are about 3-4 solid methods
>>> (if you search the archives) that cover most problems you would be
>>> looking at multiple results sets to solve.  I suppose this is why
>>> there hasn't been more of an effort to do this earlier.  People asking
>>> for this are typically dispossessed SQL server developers who haven't
>>> quite gotten used to the postgres way of things. Not that proper
>>> stored procedures wouldn't be great -- they would be -- but they are
>>> not the only way to solve these types of problems.
>>
>> I had a prototype that can do multirecordset. But implementation of
>> non transact procedures needs a hundreds  hours of work:
>>
>> * outer SPI
>> * parametrization for non planner statements - for CALL statement
>> * explicit transaction control for procedures.
>> * client API support for multirecordset
>> * better support for OUT variables.
>
> Curious: is mulitset handling as you see it supported by the current
> v3 protocol?

if you see multirecordset as setof cursors, then you don't need
changes. But in my implementation, I did a few changes, if I remember
well, because my implementation wasn't based on "setof" cursors.

Pavel

>
> merlin
>

In response to

• Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure at 2010-09-04 14:16:15 from Merlin Moncure

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-09-04 16:12:02
	Subject: Re: can we enhance regtype infunction to support %type and %type[]
Previous:	From: Merlin Moncure	Date: 2010-09-04 14:16:15
	Subject: Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure