Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures
Date: 2017-11-22 23:19:45
Message-ID: CANP8+jLpB=ozuRSmuFfP5G0ru-HL10=8v7OHL+7gnzLHPODo4g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 18 November 2017 at 02:16, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/16/17 18:35, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> For the first two answers above the answer was "currently executing
>> statement", yet the third answer seems to be the procedure. So that is
>> a slight discrepancy.
>
> That's the way function execution, or really any nested execution,
> currently works.

I'm impressed that these features are so clean and simple. I wasn't
expecting that. I have very few review comments.

I vote in favour of applying these patches at the end of this CF, end of 11/17.
* Procedures
* Transaction control in PL/pgSQL (only)

That will give us 3 months to discuss problems and find solutions,
then later we can commit PL/Python, PL/perl and PL/tcl once we know
where the dragons are hiding.

If we delay, we will end up with some weird gotcha that needs changing
in the next release.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-23 00:11:09 Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-11-22 23:07:07 Re: Query became very slow after 9.6 -> 10 upgrade