Re: Re: Not to start a flame war but what does Oracle have that Postgresql does not?
От | Rob Richardson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Not to start a flame war but what does Oracle have that Postgresql does not? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 04A6DB42D2BA534FAC77B90562A6A03D017CC1DB@server.rad-con.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Not to start a flame war but what does Oracle have that Postgresql does not? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-novice |
-----Original Message----- Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> writes: > Rob Richardson, 23.03.2011 16:40: >> What do you mean by "real stored procedures"? I only know PostGreSQL >> stored procedures. What are they missing? > Postgres only has functions, no procedures. Ignoring trivial syntax differences, I think the important point is that in Oracle procedures execute outside the database engine, so to speak. That means they can start and commit transactions. In Postgres, functions are called inside a transaction and they can't commit it or start a new one. They can run sub-transactions (savepoints) but they can't commit a whole transaction. So for example you can never make partial results of a function's execution visible to another session. regards, tom lane -- Thanks, Tom. That's interesting. I've wanted to use transactions in functions in PostgreSQL, and not been able to. For example, trying to save debugging information to a table before raising an exception from the function. The exception gets raised, the transaction gets rolled back, and the saved debugging information isn't there anymore. RobR
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: