From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DO ... RETURNING |
Date: | 2013-06-11 15:03:02 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRB3Ooy20_PhERsncbJJ9tj3EHAK7m0i+8zOgJJuJx_qjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/6/11 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2013/6/11 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
>> * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>>> I agree with all your comments pretty much down the line. Need top
>>> level CALL that supports parameterization and multiple sets that
>>> utilizes background worker (we have example spi worker that gives some
>>> hints about how pl/pgsql could be made to work). Because it's top
>>> level (can't even be inlined to CTE), we can access behaviors that are
>>> not possible in current pl/pgsql, for example setting transaction
>>> isolation in advance of snapshot and changing database connection
>>> mid-procedure.
>>
>> And this still has next-to-nothing to do with the specific proposal that
>> was put forward.
>>
>> I'd like actual procedures too, but it's a completely different and
>> distinct thing from making DO blocks able to return something.
>
> I think so it is related - we talk about future form of DO statement -
> or about future form of server side scripting.
>
> But it is not important in this moment
I wrote, so I can live with Hannu proposal.
Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-06-11 15:27:50 | Re: DO ... RETURNING |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-06-11 15:00:48 | Re: DO ... RETURNING |