| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <Josh(dot)Berkus(at)sun(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4) |
| Date: | 2007-10-30 14:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20071030143319.GB3352@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
James Mansion wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Not only would they be generally useful for SP programming, but
>> multisets would eliminate one of the big hurdles in re-writing T-SQL
>> stored procedures in PG, and thus make it easier to port from SQL
>> Server. You don't hear a lot of demand for multisets on the mailing
>> lists because we're not getting those SQL Server / Sybase crossovers
>> now.
>>
> Its true that multiple result sets are a big deal with T-SQL
> programming: but I think you'll also need to provide a way for the
> locking model to behave in a similar way and also very importantly to
> be able to emulate the after-statement triggers view of new and old
> images.
I don't think we need to (or, for that matter, are able to) change the
locking model, but the NEW and OLD views of for-statement triggers
should be just a SMOP.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-30 14:38:03 | Re: install-strip causes dyld errors on OS X |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-30 14:31:12 | Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4) |