From: | James William Pye <flaw(at)rhid(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl |
Date: | 2004-11-22 17:21:25 |
Message-ID: | 1101144085.32981.53.camel@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 16:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> You're right. You can *not* expose those as user-callable operations in
> a PL language. Consider for example what will happen if the user tries
> to roll back to a savepoint that was established outside your function
> call, or tries to exit the function while still inside a local
> savepoint. You have to enforce strict nesting of functions and
> subtransactions; therefore it's a lot easier to present an API that
> looks like an exception-block construct (per plpgsql), or that just
> hides the whole deal in the SPI calling interface (as I'm proposing for
> plperl/pltcl).
Hrm, what about a savepoint scoping facility that would be wrapped
around calls to [volatile?] functions to explicitly enforce these
regulations?
[...Poking around the archives a bit...]
[Or do I mean savepoint levels?]:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-07/msg00505.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-09/msg00569.php
--
Regards,
James William Pye
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matt | 2004-11-22 17:31:15 | Re: patch: plpgsql - access records with rec.(expr) |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2004-11-22 17:14:17 | Re: Beta5 now Available |