| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Changed TODO wording: < * Support procedures, which return no | 
| Date: | 2008-04-11 19:51:04 | 
| Message-ID: | 200804111951.m3BJp4e10494@momjian.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers | 
Tom Lane wrote:
> momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> > Log Message:
> > -----------
> > Changed TODO wording:
> 
> > < * Support procedures, which return no value
> > > * Allow functions to control the transaction state
> 
> I can't imagine that we'd implement this by "allowing functions to
> control the transaction state".  It would have to be some other sort
> of object that is invoked in some entirely other way, perhaps
> via a "PERFORM procedure_name..." kind of command.  Once you're inside
> a SELECT you're not going to be committing anything.
OK, updated wording:
	* Allow calling of a procedure outside a SELECT that can control the
	  transaction state
I see now why a transaction is needed --- because it doesn't have the
SELECT wrapper.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-11 22:52:05 | pgsql: Fix several datatype input functions that were allowing unused | 
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-04-11 19:50:40 | pgsql: Update wording: < * Allow functions to control the transaction |