| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Date: | 2011-04-25 19:05:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1303758341.5006.62.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2011-04-25 at 13:34 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> hm. does the sql standard prohibit the use of extra transactional
> features?
It doesn't prohibit anything. It just kindly requests that standard
syntax has standard behavior.
> are you sure it's not implied that any sql (including
> START TRANSACTION etc) is valid? meaning, unless otherwise specified,
> you should be able to do those things, and that our functions because
> they force one transaction operation are non-standard, not the other
> way around.
Syntactically, it appears to be allowed, and there's something about
savepoint levels. So that might be something related. In any case, if
we use standard syntax, that should be researched.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-25 19:07:14 | Re: "stored procedures" - use cases? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-25 19:05:29 | Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind |