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
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 |