From: | "Jan B(dot)" <jan(at)monso(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | --= Tono =-- <tonodarmodjo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs |
Date: | 2005-05-23 15:01:12 |
Message-ID: | 4291F038.3040100@monso.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> I have a similar problem and already considered using RULEs, but I
>> encountered the problem, that I did not find any way to execute
>> procedures from RULEs without using SELECT, which creates always a
>> result set being passed to the application invoking the INSERT,
>> UPDATE or DELETE, even if the function is declared VOID. This is
>> causing trouble when using asynchronous command processing.
>
>
> The solution then is for us to get around to implementing procedures,
> rather than functions, in PostgreSQL I think.
>
> Chris
>
Yes, I think that this would be a good way to solve the problem, but is
it planned to implement procedures in near future?
What about extending the SQL command set by an "INVOKE" command, which
invokes a function and discards the result?
Jan Behrens
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-05-23 15:13:47 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-05-23 14:46:26 | Re: INSTEAD OF trigger on VIEWs |