On Saturday, August 22, 2020, Jürgen Purtz <juer...@purtz.de> wrote:
> On 22.08.20 13:05, Robin Abbi wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 23:52, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> I developed the attached patach for this. Is this sufficient? >> > > Would it be appropriate to consider including some language with a similar > information content to this > >> " ... prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable to manage their >> own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that can perform full >> transaction management within the body of a function, enabling developers >> to create more advanced server-side applications, such as ones involving >> incremental bulk data loading." >> > from here https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/1894/ . > > Robin Abbi > > Can we more clearly distinguish between "function" and "procedure"? eg: > "Developers have been able to create user-defined functions in PostgreSQL > since decades, but functions are unable to manage their own transactions. > PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that can perform full transaction > management within their body, enabling developers to create more advanced > server-side applications, such as ones involving incremental bulk data > loading." > > as a modification of the original release notes: > > "Developers have been able to create user-defined functions in PostgreSQL > for over 20 years, but prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable > to manage their own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that > can perform full transaction management within the body of a function, > enabling developers to create more advanced server-side applications, such > as ones involving incremental bulk data loading." > Neither the 20 years or mention of specific versions are included in the main body of the documentation. If a feature exists its documented in that version in such a manner as “this is how things are”. Replacing “their body” with “the body of a function” isn’t an improvement. David J.
