Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Where are we on stored procedures?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,"Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>,"Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Where are we on stored procedures?
Date: 2005-02-25 15:23:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
>> 1. Executing outside the database engine, and therefore being able to
>> start/commit transactions.  (This is *fundamentally* different from our
>> current concept of functions, and I think that any implementation that
>> tries to gloss over the difference will be doomed to failure.)

> Back in the early days of nested transactions, you could begin/commit
> while within a transaction...they could be pushed and popped off of a
> stack.

Those weren't actual transaction starts or commits though; they were
(in our current terminology) savepoints.  People want *real* commits
in stored procedures, not fakes.  For instance consider an SP that
wants to issue a series of VACUUM commands --- if there's a hidden
transaction block around the SP, this must fail.  Locking considerations
may force use of real commits and real rollbacks, too.  You can't
release a lock by committing a subtransaction.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2005-02-25 15:25:11
Subject: Re: int64/double for time/timestamp
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-25 15:18:35
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group