On Apr 22, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >> Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> wouldn't it be better if the current crop of language handlers >>> could run procedures without major changes? C functions with SPI? >>> However it's internally implemented, the more userland mindspace >>> recovered for use of writing procedures the better off we are. > >> +1 > > I'd like a pony, too. Let's be perfectly clear about this: there is no > part of plpgsql that can run outside a transaction today, and probably > no part of the other PLs either, and changing that "without major > changes" is wishful thinking of the first order.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but the basic issue is, I think, that an error might occur. And transactions are how we make sure that when control returns to the top level, we've released any heavyweight locks, lightweight locks, buffer pins, backend-local memory allocations, etc. that we were holding when the error occurred. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
