Re: Procedure support improvements

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rader <david(dot)rader(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Procedure support improvements
Date: 2019-08-26 18:31:44
Message-ID: CADK3HHLbnfG5TTuMyTt3CrS7nYvXxLhdwNBJt3sEp-053pbc=g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> > Dave Cramer wrote:
> > test=> BEGIN;
> > BEGIN
> > test=> CALL testproc();
> > ERROR: invalid transaction termination
> > CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function testproc() line 1 at COMMIT
>
> > What is the rationale for this?
>
> A procedure shouldn't be able to force commit of the surrounding
> transaction.
>
> As Dave noted, what would be nicer is for procedures to be able
> to start and commit autonomous transactions, without affecting
> the state of the outer transaction. We haven't got that though,
> and it looks like a lot of work to get there.
>

I'm less than motivated to hack the driver to make something work here
until we finish the server feature.

Who knows what that might bring ?

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com

>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2019-08-26 18:34:27 Re: range_agg
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-08-26 18:14:50 Re: Procedure support improvements

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2019-08-27 10:39:33 Re: Recommendations for PGBouncer interacting with HikariCP
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-08-26 18:14:50 Re: Procedure support improvements