2013/6/11 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > 2013/6/11 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: >> * Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> I agree with all your comments pretty much down the line. Need top >>> level CALL that supports parameterization and multiple sets that >>> utilizes background worker (we have example spi worker that gives some >>> hints about how pl/pgsql could be made to work). Because it's top >>> level (can't even be inlined to CTE), we can access behaviors that are >>> not possible in current pl/pgsql, for example setting transaction >>> isolation in advance of snapshot and changing database connection >>> mid-procedure. >> >> And this still has next-to-nothing to do with the specific proposal that >> was put forward. >> >> I'd like actual procedures too, but it's a completely different and >> distinct thing from making DO blocks able to return something. > > I think so it is related - we talk about future form of DO statement - > or about future form of server side scripting. > > But it is not important in this moment
I wrote, so I can live with Hannu proposal. Regards > > Pavel > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
