From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: "stored procedures" |
Date: | 2011-04-21 15:40:26 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTin9SzvDeJ6QfU-nGWEhX=xwKLND3w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Peter
2011/4/21 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> So the topic of "real" "stored procedures" came up again. Meaning a
> function-like object that executes outside of a regular transaction,
> with the ability to start and stop SQL transactions itself.
>
> I would like to collect some specs on this feature. So does anyone have
> links to documentation of existing implementations, or their own spec
> writeup? A lot of people appear to have a very clear idea of this
> concept in their own head, so let's start collecting those.
>
I had a patch for "transactional" procedures, but this is lost :(
http://okbob.blogspot.com/2007/11/stacked-recordset-multirecordset.html
What I (We) expect:
Very important points:
1. possible explicit transaction controlling - not only subtransactions
2. correct or usual behave of OUT parameters (important for JDBC people)
*** attention: overloading is related to OUT parameters too ***
Not necessary but nice:
3. Support for multirecordset and RETURN_STATUS variable
(RETURN_STATUS is defined by ANSI)
Regards
Pavel
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-21 15:43:16 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-21 15:39:56 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |