Re: Stored Procedures

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Chris Travers <chris(at)verkiel(dot)metatrontech(dot)com>
Cc: Kent Anderson <kenta(at)ezyield(dot)com>, "Pgsql-General(at)Postgresql(dot) Org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Stored Procedures
Date: 2004-09-21 19:08:10
Message-ID: 20040921190810.GA7160@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 11:11:33AM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> >There's only one transaction (whether it's an explicit transaction block
> >or an implicit one), and the query that invokes the stored procedure is
> >already running inside it. So the stored procedure always has the
> >safety of it, and it can't get out (except by raising an error and
> >aborting the whole thing). The transaction can only be committed
> >_after_ the stored procedure has finished succesfully.
>
> I am assuming that save points would still work as advertised in stored
> procedures....

Not at all. What you actually use is exception blocks.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"El sentido de las cosas no viene de las cosas, sino de
las inteligencias que las aplican a sus problemas diarios
en busca del progreso." (Ernesto Hernández-Novich)

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josué Maldonado 2004-09-21 19:09:00 Set return function with union all
Previous Message Reynard Hilman 2004-09-21 18:40:35 Re: abnormal data grow