| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Date: | 2011-04-22 03:42:07 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTinWzBYA9tsS=f8T-2C7EBWv0pk2Yw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> What about cancelling? Cancel the current running query, or the whole
>> procedure (I'm assuming the latter? How would that work?
>
> Good question. If you're imagining that the SP could decide to cancel a
> database request partway through, it seems even further afield from what
> could reasonably be done in a single-threaded backend.
>
> Maybe we should think about the SP controlling a second backend (or even
> multiple backends?) that's executing the "transactional" operations.
> dblink on steroids, as it were.
SP are executed in separate process in DB2 or in Oracle - but
sometimes there are significant overhead from interprocess
communication - it is reason, why collections are popular in PLSQL.
A spacial backend for SP is probably most simple solution - but there
can be performance problems :(
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-04-22 03:51:49 | Re: fsync reliability |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-22 01:38:47 | Re: Patch for pg_upgrade to turn off autovacuum |