| From: | Robin Abbi <robin(dot)abbi(at)downley(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Procedures |
| Date: | 2020-08-22 11:05:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAGmg_NXikO6tYX_McyJXN_BVJo88ntAotUHH9RyfPx=xkcO3QQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:52, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I developed the attached patach for this. Is this sufficient?
>
Would it be appropriate to consider including some language with a similar
information content to this
> " ... prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable to manage their
> own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that can perform full
> transaction management within the body of a function, enabling developers
> to create more advanced server-side applications, such as ones involving
> incremental bulk data loading."
>
from here https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1894/ .
Robin Abbi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-08-22 12:23:19 | Re: Document "59.2. Built-in Operator Classes" have a clerical error? |
| Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2020-08-22 10:10:11 | Minor fixes for PostgreSQL 13 documentation |