Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Transactions within a function body

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Reg Me Please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Dennis Brakhane <brakhane(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transactions within a function body
Date: 2008-10-02 14:15:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Reg Me Please escribió:
> Well, if it is a limitation, and having it would lead to a "better product",
> why not making it a feature for the next still-open release?

Because no one is working on implementing it?

> In my opinion that's more than a limitation, it's a missing feature.
> In your code you often need to create savepoints to delay the decision for the 
> commitment.
> A Pl/PgSQL function is just a bunch of code you want to move into the DB.
> So the need for savepoints seems to me to be still there.

You can nest blocks arbitrarily, giving you the chance to selectively
rollback pieces of the function.  It's only a bit more awkward.

Alvaro Herrera                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-10-02 14:19:01
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Andrew ChernowDate: 2008-10-02 14:09:38
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Reg Me PleaseDate: 2008-10-02 14:25:19
Subject: Re: Transactions within a function body
Previous:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-10-02 13:51:54
Subject: Re: Import German Number Format

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group