RE: why no stored procedures?

From: "Robert J(dot) Sanford, Jr(dot)" <rsanford(at)nolimitsystems(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: why no stored procedures?
Date: 2001-08-15 03:05:30
Message-ID: HOEFIONAHHKFEFENBMNOOENOCAAA.rsanford@nolimitsystems.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Jan Wieck responded in an irritated manner thusly:

> What exactly do you mean with "there are no stored
> procedures"?

i won't pretend to know what what the original poster
had in mind when asking his question but i'm a newbie
at postgres and i have some confusion as to how a
function maps to a stored procedure. the big question
in my mind is how i can treat the results from a
function as a table. i can't. i posted a message to
the pgsql-sql list which i have included below. this
tells me that postgres _does not_ support stored
procedures in the manner that those of us coming from
microsoft sql server and/or oracle.

thanks!

rjsjr

> i'm reading the postgres documentation and i'm specifically
> interested in creating stored procedures so that i can keep
> as much of the business logic in the database as possible.
> while reading 13.1.3 (SQL Functions on Composite Types) in
> the Programmer's Guide i come across the phrase...
> "When calling a function that returns a row, we cannot
> retrieve the entire row. We must either project an
> attribute out of the row or pass the entire row into
> another function.
> SELECT name(new_emp()) AS nobody;"

Unfortunately, PostgreSQL functions do not yet return result
sets. This is on the "todo" list but unfortunately requires
an overhaul of how postgresql functions work.

-Josh Berkus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Jan Wieck
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:51 PM
> To: roypgsqlgen(at)xemaps(dot)com
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] why no stored procedures?
>
>
> roypgsqlgen(at)xemaps(dot)com wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Is there any reason why there are no stored procedures
> for postgresql or
> > does this have to do with the ability to add your own procedural
> > language?
>
> What exactly do you mean with "there are no stored
> procedures"?
>
> I mean, we have more procedural languages than any other
> database and with the upcoming v7.2 we will even have
> reference cursors for PL/pgSQL to pass them into and out of
> functions. So could you detail your question please?
>
>
> Jan
>
> --
>
> #===========================================================
> ===========#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for
> being right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me.
> #
> #==================================================
> JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Snow 2001-08-15 03:14:10 RE: LARGE db dump/restore for upgrade question
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2001-08-15 02:50:31 Re: why no stored procedures?