| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |
| Date: | 2017-11-23 15:06:56 |
| Message-ID: | 795c6fe1-6236-ae5c-f7b2-8f6d0a7df535@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/23/17 00:59, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Exactly. If we want to handle OUT params this way they really need to be
> the first resultset for just this reason. That could possibly be done by
> the glue code reserving a spot in the resultset list and filling it in
> at the end of the procedure.
>
> I fail to understand how that can work though. Wouldn't we have to
> buffer all the resultset contents on the server in tuplestores or
> similar, so we can send the parameters and then the result sets?
The current PoC in the other thread puts the extra result sets in
cursors. That's essentially the buffer you are referring to. So it
seems possible, but there are some details to be worked out.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-23 15:16:35 | Re: has_sequence_privilege() never got the memo |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-23 15:01:32 | documentation is now XML |