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
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.. |