Re: "stored procedures" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: "stored procedures"
Date
Msg-id 1303755538.5006.52.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to "stored procedures"  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: "stored procedures"  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: "stored procedures"  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On tor, 2011-04-21 at 18:24 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So the topic of "real" "stored procedures" came up again.  Meaning a
> function-like object that executes outside of a regular transaction,
> with the ability to start and stop SQL transactions itself.

I would like to add a note about the SQL standard here.

Some people have been using terminology that a "function" does this and
a "procedure" does something else.  Others have also mentioned the use
of a CALL statement to invoke procedures.

Both procedures (as in CREATE PROCEDURE etc.) and the CALL statement are
specified by the SQL standard, and they make no mention of any
supertransactional behavior or autonomous transactions for procedures.
As far as I can tell, it's just a Pascal-like difference that functions
return values and procedures don't.

So procedure-like objects with a special transaction behavior will need
a different syntax or a syntax addition.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind