Re: best practice for use of functions..

From: Allen Landsidel <all(at)biosys(dot)net>
To: Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, Chris Ochs <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: best practice for use of functions..
Date: 2004-01-15 03:50:29
Message-ID: 6.0.0.22.2.20040114224844.031c15d8@pop.hotpop.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Aren't there some caveats to this related to transactions? I've been
working under the strong (I think I read.. heh) impression that
transactions cannot be nested, in 7.3 at least..

This would lead me to believe if the 'main' function called another that
failed and thus issued a rollback, would that not rollback the entire
meta-transaction, for lack of a better word?

-Allen

At 21:26 1/14/2004, Doug McNaught wrote:
>"Chris Ochs" <chris(at)paymentonline(dot)com> writes:
>
> > My preferred method is to have a function for each table that I do an
> insert
> > into, it's easier to manage that way and a lot easier to make changes if I
> > add/drop columns and tables. Right now I have one function that is called
> > by my application that in turn calls all the other functions.
> >
> > I am wondering is there is a significant overhead for calling say 10
> > functions from within a function compared to putting everything into one
> > single function?
>
>Compared to the disk I/O overhead for a transaction, it'd be lost in
>the noise--do whatever makes you happy. :)
>
>-Doug
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-01-15 04:24:50 Re: pg_dump/pg_restore problems with 7.4.1
Previous Message Doug McNaught 2004-01-15 02:26:22 Re: best practice for use of functions..