| From: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <Josh(dot)Berkus(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4) |
| Date: | 2007-10-29 22:32:44 |
| Message-ID: | 47265F8C.5010400@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Not only would they be generally useful for SP programming, but multisets
> would eliminate one of the big hurdles in re-writing T-SQL stored
> procedures in PG, and thus make it easier to port from SQL Server. You
> don't hear a lot of demand for multisets on the mailing lists because
> we're not getting those SQL Server / Sybase crossovers now.
>
Its true that multiple result sets are a big deal with T-SQL
programming: but I think you'll also
need to provide a way for the locking model to behave in a similar way
and also very importantly
to be able to emulate the after-statement triggers view of new and old
images.
James
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-10-29 23:03:46 | Recovery of Multi-stage WAL actions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-29 22:32:11 | Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4) |