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

Re: Transactions within a function body

From: Reg Me Please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 14:25:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Il Thursday 02 October 2008 16:15:10 Alvaro Herrera ha scritto:
> 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.

You mean I can issue a ROLLBACK command within a BEGIN...END; block to roll it 

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-10-02 14:27:15
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-10-02 14:19:01
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Raul CarolusDate: 2008-10-02 14:27:34
Subject: Re: W2K8
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-10-02 14:15:10
Subject: Re: Transactions within a function body

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