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

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com>
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 18:28:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc
Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane schrieb:
>> 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.

The advantage of not explicitly creating the rowtypes is that we don't
need to worry about choosing nonconflicting names for them.  So I think
I'd go down the anonymous-rowtype path even in the first cut.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-02-25 18:30:57
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-02-25 18:26:55
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Kris JurkaDate: 2005-02-25 19:05:56
Subject: Re: setFetchSize question
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2005-02-25 18:21:02
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Where are we on stored procedures?

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