From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Where are we on stored procedures? |
Date: | 2005-02-25 15:23:16 |
Message-ID: | 5155.1109344996@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> writes:
>> 1. Executing outside the database engine, and therefore being able to
>> start/commit transactions. (This is *fundamentally* different from our
>> current concept of functions, and I think that any implementation that
>> tries to gloss over the difference will be doomed to failure.)
> Back in the early days of nested transactions, you could begin/commit
> while within a transaction...they could be pushed and popped off of a
> stack.
Those weren't actual transaction starts or commits though; they were
(in our current terminology) savepoints. People want *real* commits
in stored procedures, not fakes. For instance consider an SP that
wants to issue a series of VACUUM commands --- if there's a hidden
transaction block around the SP, this must fail. Locking considerations
may force use of real commits and real rollbacks, too. You can't
release a lock by committing a subtransaction.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2005-02-25 15:25:11 | Re: int64/double for time/timestamp |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-25 15:18:35 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32 |