| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, John Adams <john_adams_mail(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 12:27:23 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik5sdPM=X_tcVxXxt_d2U3GVVVJh23SBur_tbu4@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On fre, 2010-09-03 at 16:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Part of the reason it's sat on TODO is lack of consensus about how
>> such a feature ought to look/work; particularly since most of the
>> discussion about it has considered that it'd go along with stored
>> procedures executing outside of transactions.
>
> I would probably be a mistake to tie these features together. They are
> tricky enough separately.
Hm, do you think it would be possible to request manual transaction
state when setting up the procedure (or reserve that ability for the
future)?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-07 13:27:29 | Re: can we publish a aset interface? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-07 12:16:12 | Re: Synchronization levels in SR |