On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 15:04:51 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:43:01 +0200,
>
> There has been such a distinction for a major release or two. "Stable"
> is how you mark a function that will return the same value within a
> single transaction.
I s
Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darcy Buskermolen) writes:
> > On September 30, 2004 05:55 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > To me it looks like all you need to do is add -pthreads or maybe
> > -lpthreads depending on exact system to your compile line..
>
> -lpthreads does the trick, indee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darcy Buskermolen) writes:
> On September 30, 2004 05:55 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> To me it looks like all you need to do is add -pthreads or maybe
> -lpthreads depending on exact system to your compile line..
-lpthreads does the trick, indeed. (-lpthread also does the job,
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:43:01 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >I wrote:
> >Do you see any other mislabelings?
>
> I don't but I think that the concept of immutable shall be expanded.
> I mean I can use safely a date_trunc immutable in a query ( I think th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: 02 October 2004 19:23
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Bruno Wolff III; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Mislabeled timestamp functions (was
> Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> > This makes the difference between procedures and functions quite
> > superficial: procedures are functions which return void and have parameter
> > modes.
>
> If you implement it that way I think it'll be very largely a waste of
> effort :-(. What you're t
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
> Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > Do you have any idea about databases returning result sets from SQL
> > procedures (ie, not functions).
> >
>
> As other's have pointed out, this is very common in the MS SQL Server
> world (and I believe Sysbase also supports it). I
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force
>> an initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be
>> fixed in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now
>> without noticin
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Do you see any other mislabelings?
I don't but I think that the concept of immutable shall be expanded.
I mean I can use safely a date_trunc immutable in a query ( I think this
is a sort of "immutable per statement" ) but not in a index definition
( the index mantainance is
Gavin Sherry wrote:
That's fairly bizarre (at least to my view of the world). Say we could
have OUT parameters which were of some SETOF style type I think that would
solve the same problem.
That won't satify people moving over from MSSQL/Sybase, but then again,
maybe the community at-large doesn't
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> One of the things which differentiates SPs on other DBs from PostgreSQL
> Functions is transactionality.In SQL Server and Oracle, SPs are not
> automatically a transaction; instead, they contain transactions within them.
> This is vitally important to
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I concur with Grant Finnemore's objection as well: people expect
>> procedures to be able to return resultsets, ie SETOF something,
>> not only scalar values. Whether this is what SQL2003 says is not
>> really the issue -- we have to look at what's out t
Gavin,
> I agree that packages give us something like classes in that we can define
> related functions/procs into a single namespace. They provide other
> features like package level variables and public/private functionality. I
> think they major use is namespacing, however, and we can more or l
Tom Lane wrote:
> What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force
> an initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be
> fixed in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now
> without noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > This may be a better approach. I've personally never been comfortable with
> > the use of variables outside of SPs and packages; it seems orthagonal to the
> > declaritive nature of SQL. However, this is a aesthic thing and not really
> > based on pr
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 07:28:09PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 05:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I don't think we can do that in a standard function, at least not
> > without a lot of work.
>
> Can you elaborate on why this would be so difficult?
Because you have to keep the
16 matches
Mail list logo
