Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures?

From: Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures?
Date: 2005-02-25 18:21:02
Message-ID: 421F6C8E.40804@logi-track.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

Hi, Tom,

Tom Lane schrieb:

> Yeah, but only because you have to do it explicitly. I was wondering
> whether we couldn't bury that mechanism under the hood. (In particular,
> given the improved support in 8.0 for anonymous record types, we could
> in theory have the backend invent a record type on-the-fly to match
> whatever list of OUT parameters a particular function has.)

It would not be necessarily on the fly, at least in the first step we
possibly get away with declaraing the returned tuples at creation time
and implicitly creating those tuple types. The declaration could be like
"returns (touchedrows int, somethingelse datetime), setof (article int,
description text)" for a function/method that has two resultsets, one of
those with always one row.

markus

--
markus schaber | dipl. informatiker
logi-track ag | rennweg 14-16 | ch 8001 zürich
phone +41-43-888 62 52 | fax +41-43-888 62 53
mailto:schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com | www.logi-track.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2005-02-25 18:21:21 Re: [pgsql-hackers] Daily digest v1.4988 (21 messages)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-02-25 18:19:50 Re: Development schedule

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-02-25 18:28:06 Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures?
Previous Message Markus Schaber 2005-02-25 18:08:45 Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures?