Re: "stored procedures"
От | Tatsuo Ishii |
---|---|
Тема | Re: "stored procedures" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20110422.075720.406197006913094519.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: "stored procedures" (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> EDB has an implementation of this in Advanced Server. A stored >> procedure can issue a COMMIT, which commits the current transaction >> and begins a new one. This might or might not be what people are >> imagining for this feature. If we end up doing something else, one >> thing to consider is the impact on third-party tools like PGPOOL, >> which currently keep track of whether or not a transaction is in >> progress by snooping on the stream of SQL commands. If a procedure >> can be started with no transaction in progress and return with one >> open, or the other way around, that method will break horribly. >> That's not necessarily a reason not to do it, but I suspect we would >> want to add some kind of protocol-level information about the >> transaction state instead so that such tools could continue to work. > > Huh? There's been a transaction state indicator in the protocol since > 7.4 (see ReadyForQuery). It's not our problem if PGPOOL is still using > methods that were appropriate ten years ago. Pgpool has been using the info since 2004 (7.4 was born in 2003). -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: