On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 07:28:09PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 05:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I don't think we can do that in a standard function, at least not
without a lot of work.
Can you elaborate on why this would be so difficult?
Because you have to keep the
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
This may be a better approach. I've personally never been comfortable with
the use of variables outside of SPs and packages; it seems orthagonal to the
declaritive nature of SQL. However, this is a aesthic thing and not really
based on practical
Tom Lane wrote:
What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force
an initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be
fixed in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now
without noticing, so it doesn't seem like a serious enough bug to
Gavin,
I agree that packages give us something like classes in that we can define
related functions/procs into a single namespace. They provide other
features like package level variables and public/private functionality. I
think they major use is namespacing, however, and we can more or less
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I concur with Grant Finnemore's objection as well: people expect
procedures to be able to return resultsets, ie SETOF something,
not only scalar values. Whether this is what SQL2003 says is not
really the issue -- we have to look at what's out there in
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
One of the things which differentiates SPs on other DBs from PostgreSQL
Functions is transactionality.In SQL Server and Oracle, SPs are not
automatically a transaction; instead, they contain transactions within them.
This is vitally important to
Gavin Sherry wrote:
That's fairly bizarre (at least to my view of the world). Say we could
have OUT parameters which were of some SETOF style type I think that would
solve the same problem.
That won't satify people moving over from MSSQL/Sybase, but then again,
maybe the community at-large
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Do you see any other mislabelings?
I don't but I think that the concept of immutable shall be expanded.
I mean I can use safely a date_trunc immutable in a query ( I think this
is a sort of immutable per statement ) but not in a index definition
( the index mantainance is
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
What I'm inclined to do with these is change pg_proc.h but not force
an initdb. Does anyone want to argue for an initdb to force it to be
fixed in 8.0? We've lived with the wrong labelings for some time now
without noticing, so it
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Joe Conway wrote:
Gavin Sherry wrote:
Do you have any idea about databases returning result sets from SQL
procedures (ie, not functions).
As other's have pointed out, this is very common in the MS SQL Server
world (and I believe Sysbase also supports it). It works
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
This makes the difference between procedures and functions quite
superficial: procedures are functions which return void and have parameter
modes.
If you implement it that way I think it'll be very largely a waste of
effort :-(. What you're talking
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: 02 October 2004 19:23
To: Peter Eisentraut
Cc: Bruno Wolff III; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Mislabeled timestamp functions (was
Re: [SQL] [NOVICE] date_trunc'd
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:43:01 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Do you see any other mislabelings?
I don't but I think that the concept of immutable shall be expanded.
I mean I can use safely a date_trunc immutable in a query ( I think this
is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darcy Buskermolen) writes:
On September 30, 2004 05:55 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
To me it looks like all you need to do is add -pthreads or maybe
-lpthreads depending on exact system to your compile line..
-lpthreads does the trick, indeed. (-lpthread also does the job,
Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darcy Buskermolen) writes:
On September 30, 2004 05:55 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
To me it looks like all you need to do is add -pthreads or maybe
-lpthreads depending on exact system to your compile line..
-lpthreads does the trick, indeed.
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 15:04:51 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 10:43:01 +0200,
There has been such a distinction for a major release or two. Stable
is how you mark a function that will return the same value within a
single transaction.
I should
16 matches
Mail list logo
