2010/9/4 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Also as mentioned upthread there are effective workarounds if you poke >>> around a bit. This is a FAQ, and there are about 3-4 solid methods >>> (if you search the archives) that cover most problems you would be >>> looking at multiple results sets to solve. I suppose this is why >>> there hasn't been more of an effort to do this earlier. People asking >>> for this are typically dispossessed SQL server developers who haven't >>> quite gotten used to the postgres way of things. Not that proper >>> stored procedures wouldn't be great -- they would be -- but they are >>> not the only way to solve these types of problems. >> >> I had a prototype that can do multirecordset. But implementation of >> non transact procedures needs a hundreds hours of work: >> >> * outer SPI >> * parametrization for non planner statements - for CALL statement >> * explicit transaction control for procedures. >> * client API support for multirecordset >> * better support for OUT variables. > > Curious: is mulitset handling as you see it supported by the current > v3 protocol?
if you see multirecordset as setof cursors, then you don't need changes. But in my implementation, I did a few changes, if I remember well, because my implementation wasn't based on "setof" cursors. Pavel > > merlin > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
