2010/3/1 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> IMNSHO, an 'in core' scheduler would be useful. however, I think >> before you tackle a scheduler, we need proper stored procedures. Our >> existing functions don't cut it because you can manage the transaction >> state yourself. > > Did you mean that you "can't" manage the transaction state yourself? > > Has anyone given any thought to what would be required to relax this > restriction? Is this totally impossible given our architecture, or > just a lack of round tuits?
I thing so it is very hard restriction based on using and architecture of our SPI interface. Our stored procedures are executed inside one SELECT statement - it is reason for limit. There cannot be two or more outer transactions. Different implementations has different place of runtime - it is more near to top of pipeline. Pavel > > See also: > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-porting.html#PLPGSQL-PORTING-EXCEPTIONS > > ...Robert > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
