Re: DO ... RETURNING

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