Re: "stored procedures"

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "stored procedures"
Date: 2011-04-25 18:18:58
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On tor, 2011-04-21 at 18:24 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So the topic of "real" "stored procedures" came up again. Meaning a
> function-like object that executes outside of a regular transaction,
> with the ability to start and stop SQL transactions itself.

I would like to add a note about the SQL standard here.

Some people have been using terminology that a "function" does this and
a "procedure" does something else. Others have also mentioned the use
of a CALL statement to invoke procedures.

Both procedures (as in CREATE PROCEDURE etc.) and the CALL statement are
specified by the SQL standard, and they make no mention of any
supertransactional behavior or autonomous transactions for procedures.
As far as I can tell, it's just a Pascal-like difference that functions
return values and procedures don't.

So procedure-like objects with a special transaction behavior will need
a different syntax or a syntax addition.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-04-25 18:21:19 Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-04-25 18:18:06 Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off