Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions
Date: 2018-03-16 17:49:23
Message-ID: 27243.1521222563@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2018-03-16 18:35 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <
> peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
>> Not very typical, but we apply the same execution context handling to
>> CALL and DO at the top level, so it would be weird not to propagate that.

> Although it is possible, I don't see any sense of introduction for DO into
> plpgsql. Looks like duplicate to EXECUTE.

Not sure what you think is being "introduced" here. It already works just
like any other random SQL command:

regression=# do $$
regression$# begin
regression$# raise notice 'outer';
regression$# do $i$ begin raise notice 'inner'; end $i$;
regression$# end $$;
NOTICE: outer
NOTICE: inner
DO

While certainly that's a bit silly as-is, I think it could have practical
use if the inner DO invokes a different PL.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-03-16 17:50:37 Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-03-16 17:43:38 Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions