2017-01-11 21:08 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us>: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 08:56:23PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > > >I think we need to focus on things that _can't_ be done first, rather > > >than things that require porting, e.g. until we had savepoints, you > > >couldn't migrate an application that needed it. It wasn't a question of > > >porting --- there was just no way to port it. > > > > > >Those _missing_ pieces should be a priority. > > > > Nested/autonomous transactions? Do they occur often in PL/SQL code? > > Yes, they do based on the number of "I can't port from Oracle" > complaints we used to get, perhaps related to exceptions. Once we had > them, the complaints of that type disappeared. >
We have not PL controllable transactions - so some patterns are not available in our functions. On second hand - currently all usage of explicit commit/rollback was related to some Oracle issue (what I know) 1. missing easy debug printing - there was not nothing like RAISE NOTICE - dbms_output - is poor solution 2. it was workaround for limited transaction size In 90% it are solutions of issues that are not in Postgres. Can be nice to have procedures - and it can be benefit for all, but it is not too big gap. When you use postgres's patterns, then you don't need it - but there are more work with migration. Regards Pavel > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
