| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
| Date: | 2010-09-10 04:49:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1284094156.31815.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tor, 2010-09-09 at 16:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> You might care to go back and re-read some of the extensive prior
> threads about this, but to my mind the main thing that would justify
> inventing a separate PROCEDURE facility is if procedures were to
> execute outside the transaction system, so that they could start and
> stop transactions for themselves.
Given what the SQL standard says, a "procedure" certainly has to be
defined as syntactic sugar for "function returns void". Special
transaction handling would then have to be an additional attribute of
the procedure.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2010-09-10 05:02:14 | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-09-10 04:47:27 | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |