| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL procedures |
| Date: | 2017-11-08 15:13:31 |
| Message-ID: | 0cf40145-4f64-7b55-1257-b782a794b117@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/8/17 09:23, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> I do wonder how transaction control could be added later.
>
> The last time I (lightly) looked at this, I was starting to think that
> working transaction control into the SPI interface was the wrong
> approach; pl/pgsql would have to adopt a very different set of
> behaviors if it was called in a function or a proc. If you restricted
> language choice to purely SQL, you could work around this problem; SPI
> languages would be totally abstracted from those sets of
> considerations and you could always call an arbitrary language
> function if you needed to. SQL has no flow control but I'm not too
> concerned about that.
I have already submitted a separate patch that addresses these questions.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-08 15:31:17 | Re: Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-08 15:08:39 | Re: SQL procedures |