| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions |
| Date: | 2018-03-16 04:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAB73bKb45-Pa6RSB4b0fdWE+0HSYs0Vyz0gY4WwT==Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
2018-03-16 2:57 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
>:
> On 2/28/18 14:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > So far, a nested CALL or DO in PL/pgSQL would not establish a context
> > where transaction control statements were allowed. This patch fixes
> > that by handling CALL and DO specially in PL/pgSQL, passing the
> > atomic/nonatomic execution context through and doing the required
> > management around transaction boundaries.
>
> rebased patch
>
What is benefit of DO command in PLpgSQL? Looks bizarre for me.
Reards
Pavel
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-03-16 04:46:15 | Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-03-16 04:03:14 | Re: PQHost() undefined behavior if connecting string contains both host and hostaddr types |