Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Transactions within a function body

2008-10-02 Thread Asko Oja
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Bob Henkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you looked at creating a function in perl and creating a new > connection? Or using a dblink query which can create a new connection? > These two methods work. I have used them to insert to a log table regardless > of the

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Transactions within a function body

2008-10-02 Thread Bob Henkel
Have you looked at creating a function in perl and creating a new connection? Or using a dblink query which can create a new connection? These two methods work. I have used them to insert to a log table regardless of the parent transaction being commited or rolled back. A old example I posted of u

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Transactions within a function body

2008-10-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Gurjeet Singh escribió: > I have seen this feature being asked for, and this work-around suggested so > many times. If plpgql does it internally, why not provide a clean interface > for this? Is there some road-block, or that nobody has ever tried it? Initially we aimed at just exposing SAVEPOINT

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Transactions within a function body

2008-10-02 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Reg Me Please escribió: > > Il Thursday 02 October 2008 16:15:10 Alvaro Herrera ha scritto: > > > > You can nest blocks arbitrarily, giving you the chance to selectively > > > rollback pieces of the function. It's only a b