Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Josh Berkus" <Josh(dot)Berkus(at)sun(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)
Date: 2007-10-27 12:43:17
Message-ID: 877il820ey.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

> Later:
> * procedure can manages transactions,

Personally this is the only actual feature on the list that seems to have any
point to me.

> Why new calling convention? I would to support byref variables and
> then I have to carry memory context info ... and maybe some others

I think first you have to invent something for the by-ref parameter to refer
to. We don't currently have any kind of "variables" which can be mutated. We
just have immutable datums which get passed up the query. Effectively SQL is a
functional programming language in that sense.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2007-10-27 12:53:59 min/max planner optimization
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2007-10-27 11:40:42 Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)