| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DO ... RETURNING |
| Date: | 2013-06-11 16:00:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20130611160049.GP7200@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> 2013/6/11 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> > And this still has next-to-nothing to do with the specific proposal that
> > was put forward.
> >
> > I'd like actual procedures too, but it's a completely different and
> > distinct thing from making DO blocks able to return something.
>
> I think so it is related - we talk about future form of DO statement -
> or about future form of server side scripting.
I don't believe there's any intent to ever have DO used for stored
procedures. Not only are stored procedures deserving of their own
top-level command (eg: CALL, as has been discussed before..), but I
believe they would necessairly have different enough semantics that
shoe-horning them into DO would end up breaking backwards compatibility.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Drees | 2013-06-11 16:08:08 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2013-06-11 15:34:37 | Re: [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement) |