Have you looked at creating a function in perl and creating a new connection? Or using a dblink query which can create a new connection? These two methods work. I have used them to insert to a log table regardless of the parent transaction being commited or rolled back.
A old example I posted of using pl/perl can be found here ->http://www.postgresqlforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=647
The key is opening a new session which using dblink or pl/perl dbi connection will do. This is not ideal or efficient. It would be nice if you could just do autonomous transactions natively in pl/pgsql, but I find this method works for the cases where you need it(logging, huge batch processing tasks where it's not ideal to process everything in one transaction).
Bob
"Hi all.
Is there a way to have (sub)transactions within a function body?
I'd like to execute some code (a transaction!) inside a function and later
decide whether that transaction is to be committed or not.
Thanks."
A old example I posted of using pl/perl can be found here ->http://www.postgresqlforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=647
The key is opening a new session which using dblink or pl/perl dbi connection will do. This is not ideal or efficient. It would be nice if you could just do autonomous transactions natively in pl/pgsql, but I find this method works for the cases where you need it(logging, huge batch processing tasks where it's not ideal to process everything in one transaction).
Bob
"Hi all.
Is there a way to have (sub)transactions within a function body?
I'd like to execute some code (a transaction!) inside a function and later
decide whether that transaction is to be committed or not.
Thanks."
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gurjeet Singh escribió:
Initially we aimed at just exposing SAVEPOINT and ROLLBACK TO in
> I have seen this feature being asked for, and this work-around suggested so
> many times. If plpgql does it internally, why not provide a clean interface
> for this? Is there some road-block, or that nobody has ever tried it?
functions, but ran into the problem that the SPI stack needs to be dealt
with appropriately and you can't do it if the user is able to modify it
arbitrarily by calling transaction-modifying commands. That's when the
EXCEPTION idea came up. We never went back and studied whether we could
have fixed the SPI limitation, but it's not trivial.
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
