On Sat, Sep 7, 2024, 11:56 ch.l.ngre wrote:
>
>
>
> You are right, the documentation for CALL states that a row is being
> returned.
> However if you read
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/xproc.html#XPROC
> 'Procedures do not return a function value; hen
t/xproc.html#XPROC
'Procedures do not return a function value; hence CREATE PROCEDURE lacks
a RETURNS clause. However, procedures can instead return data to their
callers via output parameters'
this does not sound like a row being returned. Also plpgsql does not do
it when you invoke CALL.
The
On Monday, September 2, 2024, PG Doc comments form
wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/libpq-exec.html
> Description:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/libpq-exec.html#LIBPQ-PQRESULTSTATUS
> Existing text:
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/libpq-exec.html
Description:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/libpq-exec.html#LIBPQ-PQRESULTSTATUS
Existing text:
If the result status is PGRES_TUPLES_OK, PGRES_SINGLE_TUPLE, or
PGRES_TU
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:38:56PM +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 06:23:44PM +, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote:
> >> >Good point. It seems PL/pgSQL, PL/Perl, PL/Python, PL/Tcl, and SPI
> >> >server-side languages all support pro
>> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/plpgsql-overview.html
>> >> Description:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> since PostgreSQL 11 we have procedures, so referencing to only functions
>> >> here seems to igno
ps://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/plpgsql-overview.html
> >> Description:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> since PostgreSQL 11 we have procedures, so referencing to only functions
> >> here seems to ignore that. Shouldn't procedures be mentioned here
Hi Bruce,
>On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 07:15:29PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
>> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/plpgsql-overview.html
>> Description:
>>
>> Hi,
>&g
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 07:15:29PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/plpgsql-overview.html
> Description:
>
> Hi,
>
> since PostgreSQL 11 we have proce
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/plpgsql-overview.html
Description:
Hi,
since PostgreSQL 11 we have procedures, so referencing to only functions
here seems to ignore that. Shouldn't procedures be mentioned here as
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 03:03:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:38:11PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-08-24 18:00, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > -command, a procedure is called explicitly using
> > > -the statement.
> > > +command, a procedure is c
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:38:11PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-08-24 18:00, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > -command, a procedure is called explicitly using
> > -the statement.
> > +command, a procedure is called in isolation using
> > +the command. If the CALL command is n
On 2020-08-24 18:00, Bruce Momjian wrote:
-command, a procedure is called explicitly using
-the statement.
+command, a procedure is called in isolation using
+the command. If the CALL command is not
+part of an explicit transaction, a procedure can commit, rollback,
+an
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:09 AM Pavel Stehule
wrote:
>
>
> po 24. 8. 2020 v 18:00 odesílatel Bruce Momjian napsal:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 05:51:29PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > sure. Maybe enhancing about sentence like "it is not possible in a
>> function."
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > "a
po 24. 8. 2020 v 18:00 odesílatel Bruce Momjian napsal:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 05:51:29PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > sure. Maybe enhancing about sentence like "it is not possible in a
> function."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "a procedure can commit (or rollback) and begin new transactions during
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 05:51:29PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> sure. Maybe enhancing about sentence like "it is not possible in a function."
>
> and
>
> "a procedure can commit (or rollback) and begin new transactions during its
> execution"
OK, updated patch.
--
Bruce Momjian
its
> > > > > execution.
> > > >
> > > > OK, how is this updated patch?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looks good. I felt "begin and commit" was a bit wordy but it
> works.
> >
>
> > > Looks good. I felt "begin and commit" was a bit wordy but it works.
> >
> > So, I was worried that "manage multiple transactions" could imply
> > something like savepoints, which can be managed by functions. It is
>
ns" could imply
> something like savepoints, which can be managed by functions. It is
> really the top-level begin/commit that is unique for procedures.
>
> Functions is executed under outer transaction every time - rollback to save
> point hasn't impact on
t; > Looks good. I felt "begin and commit" was a bit wordy but it works.
>
> So, I was worried that "manage multiple transactions" could imply
> something like savepoints, which can be managed by functions. It is
> really the top-level begin/commit that is unique f
multiple transactions" could imply
something like savepoints, which can be managed by functions. It is
really the top-level begin/commit that is unique for procedures.
--
Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:14 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:42:35PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > [...] the CALL command. If the CALL command is not part of an explicit
> > transaction a procedure can also manage multiple transactions during its
> > execution.
>
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 07:42:35PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:52 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> > Agreed, this doc area needs help.
>
> I developed the attached patach for this. Is this sufficient?
>
>
> For consistency I would change "statement" to "c
ation content to this
>
> " ... prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable to manage their
> own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that can perform full
> transaction management within the body of a function, enabling developers
> to crea
g some language with a similar
> information content to this
>
>> " ... prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable to manage their
>> own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that can perform full
>> transaction management within the body of a function,
t to this
" ... prior to PostgreSQL 11, these functions were unable to
manage their own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures
that can perform full transaction management within the body of a
function, enabling developers to create more advanced server-side
applications
able to manage their
> own transactions. PostgreSQL 11 adds SQL procedures that can perform full
> transaction management within the body of a function, enabling developers
> to create more advanced server-side applications, such as ones involving
> incremental bulk data l
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:52 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Agreed, this doc area needs help.
>
> I developed the attached patach for this. Is this sufficient?
>
For consistency I would change "statement" to "command" at the end of that
paragraph .
the command.
and to contrast with "a p
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 06:10:52PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 02:30:55PM +0100, Robin Abbi wrote:
> > PostgreSQL went as far as release 10 without procedures.
> > Some third party resources written before 11 loosely conflate procedures
> > with
&g
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 02:30:55PM +0100, Robin Abbi wrote:
> PostgreSQL went as far as release 10 without procedures.
> Some third party resources written before 11 loosely conflate procedures with
> functions.
> Some third party resources written before 11 accurately state Po
PostgreSQL went as far as release 10 without procedures.
Some third party resources written before 11 loosely conflate procedures
with functions.
Some third party resources written before 11 accurately state PostgreSQL
has functions but not procedures.
Referring to the PostgreSQL docs for 11 on
t; Description:
> >
> > The information on procedures could helpfully include that the feature is
> > new from PostgreSQL 11 and give an explanation of how it differs from
> > functions. I found the information I needed here
> > https://dba.stackexchange.com/a/262662
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:33:49AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/sql-createprocedure.html
> Description:
>
> The information on procedures could helpfull
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/sql-createprocedure.html
Description:
The information on procedures could helpfully include that the feature is
new from PostgreSQL 11 and give an explanation of how it differs from
=?utf-8?q?PG_Doc_comments_form?= writes:
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/plpgsql-trigger.html
> The documentation (10 and 9.6) contains a typo when mentioning 'Special
> local variables PG_something'. Instead it should be 'Special local variables
> TG_something' as it is for tri
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/plpgsql-trigger.html
Description:
The documentation (10 and 9.6) contains a typo when mentioning 'Special
local variables PG_something'. Instead it should be 'Special local variable
36 matches
Mail list logo
