From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions |
Date: | 2018-03-16 17:50:49 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCF7o2d-YZheXJnNdNz8+SR_gTveBC=65v1=giG_eOyMQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2018-03-16 18:49 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 2018-03-16 18:35 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut <
> > peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> >> Not very typical, but we apply the same execution context handling to
> >> CALL and DO at the top level, so it would be weird not to propagate
> that.
>
> > Although it is possible, I don't see any sense of introduction for DO
> into
> > plpgsql. Looks like duplicate to EXECUTE.
>
> Not sure what you think is being "introduced" here. It already works just
> like any other random SQL command:
>
> regression=# do $$
> regression$# begin
> regression$# raise notice 'outer';
> regression$# do $i$ begin raise notice 'inner'; end $i$;
> regression$# end $$;
> NOTICE: outer
> NOTICE: inner
> DO
>
> While certainly that's a bit silly as-is, I think it could have practical
> use if the inner DO invokes a different PL.
>
ok, make sense
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-03-16 18:21:06 | Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-16 17:50:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |