Re: Packages: Again

2017-01-11 21:08 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>:

> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:56:23PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >
> > >I think we need to focus on things that _can't_ be done first, rather
> > >than things that require porting, e.g. until we had savepoints, you
> > >couldn't migrate an application that needed it. It wasn't a question of
> > >porting --- there was just no way to port it.
> > >
> > >Those _missing_ pieces should be a priority.
> >
> > Nested/autonomous transactions? Do they occur often in PL/SQL code?
>
> Yes, they do based on the number of "I can't port from Oracle"
> complaints we used to get, perhaps related to exceptions. Once we had
> them, the complaints of that type disappeared.
>

We have not PL controllable transactions - so some patterns are not
available in our functions.

On second hand - currently all usage of explicit commit/rollback was
related to some Oracle issue (what I know)

1. missing easy debug printing - there was not nothing like RAISE NOTICE -
dbms_output - is poor solution

2. it was workaround for limited transaction size

In 90% it are solutions of issues that are not in Postgres. Can be nice to
have procedures - and it can be benefit for all, but it is not too big gap.
When you use postgres's patterns, then you don't need it - but there are
more work with migration.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>