| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(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 14:45:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20130611144554.GO7200@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* 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.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2013-06-11 14:53:57 | Re: Parallell Optimizer |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-06-11 14:39:37 | Re: DO ... RETURNING |