From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Reg Me Please <regmeplease(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Dennis Brakhane <brakhane(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Transactions within a function body |
Date: | 2008-10-02 14:15:10 |
Message-ID: | 20081002141510.GA4151@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Reg Me Please escribió:
> Well, if it is a limitation, and having it would lead to a "better product",
> why not making it a feature for the next still-open release?
Because no one is working on implementing it?
> In my opinion that's more than a limitation, it's a missing feature.
> In your code you often need to create savepoints to delay the decision for the
> commitment.
> A Pl/PgSQL function is just a bunch of code you want to move into the DB.
> So the need for savepoints seems to me to be still there.
You can nest blocks arbitrarily, giving you the chance to selectively
rollback pieces of the function. It's only a bit more awkward.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Reg Me Please | 2008-10-02 14:25:19 | Re: Transactions within a function body |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-02 13:51:54 | Re: Import German Number Format |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-10-02 14:19:01 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-10-02 14:09:38 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |