On 04/25/2011 02:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2011-04-21 at 18:24 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
So the topic of "real" "stored procedures" came up again. Meaning a
function-like object that executes outside of a regular transaction,
with the ability to start and stop SQL transactions itself.
I would like to add a note about the SQL standard here.
Some people have been using terminology that a "function" does this and
a "procedure" does something else. Others have also mentioned the use
of a CALL statement to invoke procedures.
Both procedures (as in CREATE PROCEDURE etc.) and the CALL statement are
specified by the SQL standard, and they make no mention of any
supertransactional behavior or autonomous transactions for procedures.
As far as I can tell, it's just a Pascal-like difference that functions
return values and procedures don't.
So procedure-like objects with a special transaction behavior will need
a different syntax or a syntax addition.
The trouble is that people using at least some other databases call
supertransactional program units "stored procedures". Maybe we need a
keyword to designate supertransactional behaviour, but if we call them
anything but procedures there is likely to be endless confusion, ISTM,
especially if we have something called a procedure which is never
supertransactional.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
