Re: "stored procedures"

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "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.

Well, ok, but scope of the change and performance issues aside, is
this a technically feasible route, that is, does anything jump out
that makes it unworkable?

merlin