Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/9/9 Tom Lane <[email protected]>:
> > Darren Duncan <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Since Pg's FUNCTION already seems to take on both roles, so overloading the
> >> meaning of the FUNCTION keyword, like what a C function or a Perl sub does,
> >> where returning VOID means procedure, then what is being added by a
> >> distinct
> >> PROCEDURE?
> >
> > You might care to go back and re-read some of the extensive prior
> > threads about this, but to my mind the main thing that would justify
> > inventing a separate PROCEDURE facility is if procedures were to execute
> > outside the transaction system, so that they could start and stop
> > transactions for themselves. ?This is unlike a function which
> > necessarily executes inside an already-running transaction. ?Of course
> > a lot of questions would need to be answered about error-handling
> > behavior and so forth, but that's a capability that a LOT of people
> > have asked for.
> >
>
> it's only one request from two mayor request
>
> * transaction handling
> * unbound SELECTs and multirecordset support
>
> and some more classic handling of OUT variables.
I assume the current thought is that our "functions" would remain
unchanged and new "procedures" would allow either of these. I have
updated the "procedure" todo item to read:
Implement stored procedures
This might involve the control of transaction state and the return of
multiple result sets
* PL/pgSQL stored procedure returning multiple result sets (SELECTs)?
* Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-09/msg00542.php
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
