4 ms·
Yes, that's true, although slightly pedantic. I'm sure there are procedural cases that PG functions can't emulate, although I don't think I've ever encountered
by gmfawcett 8y ago
Yes, that's true, although slightly pedantic. I'm sure there are procedural cases that PG functions can't emulate, although I don't think I've ever encountered one in practice.
Having said that, the addition of transaction support is a great step forward.
- cryptonector 8y agoOnly one: the ability to BEGIN/ROLLBACK/COMMIT in the body of the function.
- saltcured 8y agoAnd, this is just adding new syntactic support for SQL standards compliance, right? I don't think it's really a new control-flow if you ignore syntactic differences. I think you can get the equivalent behavior out of BEGIN/EXCEPT blocks in plpgsql functions. I think this behaves as if you used SAVEPOINT and ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT which have been directly supported in postgresql but not in functions.