Re: [HACKERS] request for enhancement of protocol
i think if the protocol is enhanced again we should also consider adding protocol level support for RESET CONNECTION. i have sent this patch some time ago but i think it is not worth to do the remaining protocol level changes (sql level support is finished) if this is the only change on the protocol level. best regards, hans Pavel Stehule wrote: Hello Meybe is time for some changes. Maybe. I haven't courage for it. But maybe is good time for discussion. What I miss in protocol? 1. debug. support + other level for elog. Current elog is too heavy (sometimes) 2. multi result sets. This is necessery for support procedures in DB2, MySQL, "ANSI", MsSQL style. 3. session (package) variables and calling procedures with OUT, INOUT in normal style, tj. stmt CALL. - heavy task, because I can write function a(IN int, IN int), and a(OUT int, OUT int) now. This is problem, and need restriction. 4. ping What is my motivation for 2? 1. I can write "solution" - stored application. Example: info about growing of database. Output is n tables: first table is info about database, others about top n - 1 tables, ... 2. easy reporting. I haven't possibility write stored procedure for generating cross table now. I have to do all in two steps (example): generate view, select from view. This is difference between procedures and functions. Function have to have exactly defined interface. Procedures can't. 3. easy porting from databases which support this style. sorry for my wrong english. best regards Pavel Stehule _ Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match -- Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH Schöngrabern 134; A-2020 Hollabrunn Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340 www.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] request for enhancement of protocol
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:40:23PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > >What do you mean? There are already 10 levels for elog, including five > >levels of DEBUG. How many more do you want? > > sometimes I need show only some text. Now I get stack info. > lighter elog ~ sending text, not. proc, stack info. You could turn the log_error_verbosity down so it doesn't show stack info. > >The protocol already supports this and libpq does also. However, I > >think that unless you are using async mode you may have difficulty > >retrieving it. There's also a comment there about whether the backend > >can actually do it, so maybe some work need to be done there. Actually, I played with some functions in 8.1 and this is possible: test=# create or replace function test(int4) returns setof unknown as $$declare a record; begin select into a * from pg_attribute limit 1; return next a; return next (1,2,4); return next ('hello','world'); return next 'plain string'; return; end$$ language plpgsql; CREATE FUNCTION test=# select * from test(1); test --- (1247,typname,19,-1,64,1,0,-1,-1,f,p,i,t,f,f,t,0) (1,2,4) (hello,world) plain string (4 rows) Ok, not maybe the neatest way of doing it, but it works right now. > >> 3. session (package) variables and calling procedures with OUT, INOUT in > >> normal style, tj. stmt CALL. - heavy task, because I can write function > >> a(IN int, IN int), and a(OUT int, OUT int) now. This is problem, and > >need > >> restriction. > > > >I can understand the CALL but what's the confusing between the two > >functions a? One is a(1,2), the other is a(). > > when I can use variables (in plpgsql now, in sql in future - package > variables) I have to remember form of function. I can't to call a(@x1, > @x2). Why. Caller don't know if I mean variant one or variant two. And I > have to use nonstandard convension select into a(). Nonstandard in > separation in and out variables. I prefere some restriction here. Hmm, I searched the standard for package variable but couldn't find it. Does the syntax have to do that? What if you have an INOUT parameter and you want the output to go to a different place than the input. Wouldn't: SELECT INTO @x1, @x2 from a(); SELECT * from a(@x1,@x2); be less ambiguous? > SELECT works well if I expect scalar value. But if I expect table I have to > use diff. form > SELECT * FROM ... I see two modes of calling a) select - typed result, b) > call - untyped result. For point a I have different requirements than for > point b. And I see difference between statement call (clauses where, from, > .) and statement call. PostgreSQL don't support procedures now, only > functions. As pointed out above, PostgreSQL does support untyped results, just as long as you don't try to pass it to any other functions. > if you have to solve creating cross table for normal interactive using in > console, you have two possibilities: 1. call stored procedure which > generate temp wiew and user will do select from view, or procedure can > create cursor and user will do select from cursor. But you can't do in one > procedure now. You mean a crosstab query like in contrib/tablefunc? That doesn't require creating a view. But then, that may not be what you want. > I spent some time for looking way for implementing this into plpgsql. I > didn't find it. It's part of SPI too. I imagine in SPI you could unpack the sets returned by functions returing "unknown", but I havn't tried that. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them. pgpgwg68vS6i5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [HACKERS] request for enhancement of protocol
What do you mean? There are already 10 levels for elog, including five levels of DEBUG. How many more do you want? sometimes I need show only some text. Now I get stack info. lighter elog ~ sending text, not. proc, stack info. > 2. multi result sets. This is necessery for support procedures in DB2, > MySQL, "ANSI", MsSQL style. The protocol already supports this and libpq does also. However, I think that unless you are using async mode you may have difficulty retrieving it. There's also a comment there about whether the backend can actually do it, so maybe some work need to be done there. libpq is "black box" for me :-(. I need support in psql and plpgsql. And not in async mode, or I need wraper over async mode: multih = execute_multi('call somestoredproc'); while not (rec = fetch_rs(multih)) { ... } > 3. session (package) variables and calling procedures with OUT, INOUT in > normal style, tj. stmt CALL. - heavy task, because I can write function > a(IN int, IN int), and a(OUT int, OUT int) now. This is problem, and need > restriction. I can understand the CALL but what's the confusing between the two functions a? One is a(1,2), the other is a(). when I can use variables (in plpgsql now, in sql in future - package variables) I have to remember form of function. I can't to call a(@x1, @x2). Why. Caller don't know if I mean variant one or variant two. And I have to use nonstandard convension select into a(). Nonstandard in separation in and out variables. I prefere some restriction here. > 4. ping You mean, a ping command without requiring a login? yes > What is my motivation for 2? > 1. I can write "solution" - stored application. Example: info about > growing of database. Output is n tables: first table is info about > database, others about top n - 1 tables, .. So you mean a function that can return anything (and hence cannot be used in normal queries). And thus define a special interface for it (CALL). Still, SELECT function() would work just as well, no? SELECT works well if I expect scalar value. But if I expect table I have to use diff. form SELECT * FROM ... I see two modes of calling a) select - typed result, b) call - untyped result. For point a I have different requirements than for point b. And I see difference between statement call (clauses where, from, .) and statement call. PostgreSQL don't support procedures now, only functions. > 2. easy reporting. I haven't possibility write stored procedure for > generating cross table now. I have to do all in two steps (example): > generate view, select from view. Why do you need a view, why can't you use a subquery? if you have to solve creating cross table for normal interactive using in console, you have two possibilities: 1. call stored procedure which generate temp wiew and user will do select from view, or procedure can create cursor and user will do select from cursor. But you can't do in one procedure now. > This is difference between procedures and functions. Function have to > have exactly defined interface. Procedures can't. So essentially, "procedures" here are functions that return "unknown" rather than functions that return nothing? yes. This is reason why procedures can't to use in select statement > 3. easy porting from databases which support this style. Ok, valid point. Interesting points all, but they seem to be more backend related than protocol related. I spent some time for looking way for implementing this into plpgsql. I didn't find it. It's part of SPI too. Pavel _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] request for enhancement of protocol
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:07:58AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello > > Meybe is time for some changes. Maybe. I haven't courage for it. But maybe > is good time for discussion. What I miss in protocol? > > 1. debug. support + other level for elog. Current elog is too heavy > (sometimes) What do you mean? There are already 10 levels for elog, including five levels of DEBUG. How many more do you want? > 2. multi result sets. This is necessery for support procedures in DB2, > MySQL, "ANSI", MsSQL style. The protocol already supports this and libpq does also. However, I think that unless you are using async mode you may have difficulty retrieving it. There's also a comment there about whether the backend can actually do it, so maybe some work need to be done there. > 3. session (package) variables and calling procedures with OUT, INOUT in > normal style, tj. stmt CALL. - heavy task, because I can write function > a(IN int, IN int), and a(OUT int, OUT int) now. This is problem, and need > restriction. I can understand the CALL but what's the confusing between the two functions a? One is a(1,2), the other is a(). > 4. ping You mean, a ping command without requiring a login? > What is my motivation for 2? > 1. I can write "solution" - stored application. Example: info about > growing of database. Output is n tables: first table is info about > database, others about top n - 1 tables, ... So you mean a function that can return anything (and hence cannot be used in normal queries). And thus define a special interface for it (CALL). Still, SELECT function() would work just as well, no? > 2. easy reporting. I haven't possibility write stored procedure for > generating cross table now. I have to do all in two steps (example): > generate view, select from view. Why do you need a view, why can't you use a subquery? > This is difference between procedures and functions. Function have to > have exactly defined interface. Procedures can't. So essentially, "procedures" here are functions that return "unknown" rather than functions that return nothing? > 3. easy porting from databases which support this style. Ok, valid point. Interesting points all, but they seem to be more backend related than protocol related. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them. pgpZFiKc9Iloy.pgp Description: PGP signature
[HACKERS] request for enhancement of protocol
Hello Meybe is time for some changes. Maybe. I haven't courage for it. But maybe is good time for discussion. What I miss in protocol? 1. debug. support + other level for elog. Current elog is too heavy (sometimes) 2. multi result sets. This is necessery for support procedures in DB2, MySQL, "ANSI", MsSQL style. 3. session (package) variables and calling procedures with OUT, INOUT in normal style, tj. stmt CALL. - heavy task, because I can write function a(IN int, IN int), and a(OUT int, OUT int) now. This is problem, and need restriction. 4. ping What is my motivation for 2? 1. I can write "solution" - stored application. Example: info about growing of database. Output is n tables: first table is info about database, others about top n - 1 tables, ... 2. easy reporting. I haven't possibility write stored procedure for generating cross table now. I have to do all in two steps (example): generate view, select from view. This is difference between procedures and functions. Function have to have exactly defined interface. Procedures can't. 3. easy porting from databases which support this style. sorry for my wrong english. best regards Pavel Stehule _ Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com. http://www.msn.cz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match