| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Date: | 2011-04-22 15:10:43 |
| Message-ID: | 19196.1303485043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> wouldn't it be better if the current crop of language handlers
>> could run procedures without major changes? C functions with SPI?
>> However it's internally implemented, the more userland mindspace
>> recovered for use of writing procedures the better off we are.
> +1
I'd like a pony, too. Let's be perfectly clear about this: there is no
part of plpgsql that can run outside a transaction today, and probably
no part of the other PLs either, and changing that "without major
changes" is wishful thinking of the first order.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-04-22 15:24:13 | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-04-22 15:10:34 | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |