From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench \for or similar loop |
Date: | 2011-04-19 16:33:27 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=Oee33G60JyngaMvaYJys388Wo-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yeah. I was wondering if anyone was gung-ho enough about this to
>> implement some kind of library that both programs could draw on.
>>
>> It probably wouldn't be super-hard, if we could agree on a rough design.
>
> It seems to me that the Mo Betta answer would be to implement the
> fabled "stored procedure" language, that has, as its distinctive, the
> capability to control transactions. That would have the capability of
> being used in places other than just inside psql.
>
> And it would be a good way for scripting things like specialized
> vacuum and analyze regimens, which cannot be done inside stored
> functions today.
Well, I'm all good with that, too, but am not fired up about either
one to implement it myself. So I think it's going to come down to
what the person doing the work feels most strongly about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-04-19 16:48:16 | Re: Build farm coverage for isolation tests |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-19 16:32:28 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |