Re: best practice for use of functions..
От | Allen Landsidel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: best practice for use of functions.. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6.0.0.22.2.20040114224844.031c15d8@pop.hotpop.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: best practice for use of functions.. (Doug McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: best practice for use of functions..
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Aren't there some caveats to this related to transactions? I've been working under the strong (I think I read.. heh) impression that transactions cannot be nested, in 7.3 at least.. This would lead me to believe if the 'main' function called another that failed and thus issued a rollback, would that not rollback the entire meta-transaction, for lack of a better word? -Allen At 21:26 1/14/2004, Doug McNaught wrote: >"Chris Ochs" <chris@paymentonline.com> writes: > > > My preferred method is to have a function for each table that I do an > insert > > into, it's easier to manage that way and a lot easier to make changes if I > > add/drop columns and tables. Right now I have one function that is called > > by my application that in turn calls all the other functions. > > > > I am wondering is there is a significant overhead for calling say 10 > > functions from within a function compared to putting everything into one > > single function? > >Compared to the disk I/O overhead for a transaction, it'd be lost in >the noise--do whatever makes you happy. :) > >-Doug > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: