2008/10/16 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Below is a very good summary of the limitations of our function >> capabilities compared to procedures, e.g.: >> >> o no transaction control in functions >> o no multi-query return values without using special syntax >> >> I don't think we can cleanly enable the second capability, but could we >> allow transaction control for functions that are not called inside a >> multi-statement transaction? >> >> FYI, right now when you call a function all statements are assumed to be >> in a single transaction, and allowing transaction control inside a >> function would mean that each statement in a function is its own >> transaction _unless_ transaction control is specified. There would >> certainly need to be special syntax to enable this. >> >> Is there a TODO here? > > I don't think so, except that we need a TODO for proper stored > procedure support if there is not one already. Proper SPs have been > much discussed, Pavel spearheading what effort has been done. > > Being able to manually do transactions for functions would be nice > certainly, but I suspect this is a big part of the challenge for > proper SPs. > call statement should to live outside implicit transaction, so it's possible. It's simple in SQL/PSM, that is designed with transaction controll management. Pavel > merlin > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
