From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL procedures |
Date: | 2017-11-08 15:04:47 |
Message-ID: | 492a8be0-ff55-3858-7dc1-62fa07d444c2@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/6/17 16:27, Simon Riggs wrote:
> You mention PARALLEL SAFE is not used for procedures. Isn't it an
> architectural restriction that procedures would not be able to execute
> in parallel? (At least this year)
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I don't think the
functionality I'm proposing does anything in parallel or has any
interaction with it.
> I think we need an explanatory section of the docs, but there doesn't
> seem to be one for Functions, so there is no place to add some text
> that says the above.
>
> I found it confusing that ALTER and DROP ROUTINE exists but not CREATE
> ROUTINE. At very least we should say somewhere "there is no CREATE
> ROUTINE", so its absence is clearly intentional. I did wonder whether
> we should have it as well, but its just one less thing to review, so
> good.
I'll look for a place to add some documentation around this.
> Was surprised that pg_dump didn't use DROP ROUTINE, when appropriate.
It's not clear to me why that would be preferred.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-08 15:08:39 | Re: SQL procedures |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-08 14:54:17 | Re: SQL procedures |