On 04/25/2011 02:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2011-04-21 at 18:24 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> So the topic of "real" "stored procedures" came up again. Meaning a
>> function-like object that executes outside of a regular transaction,
>> with the ability to start and stop SQL transactions itself.
> I would like to add a note about the SQL standard here.
>
> Some people have been using terminology that a "function" does this and
> a "procedure" does something else. Others have also mentioned the use
> of a CALL statement to invoke procedures.
>
> Both procedures (as in CREATE PROCEDURE etc.) and the CALL statement are
> specified by the SQL standard, and they make no mention of any
> supertransactional behavior or autonomous transactions for procedures.
> As far as I can tell, it's just a Pascal-like difference that functions
> return values and procedures don't.
>
> So procedure-like objects with a special transaction behavior will need
> a different syntax or a syntax addition.
>
The trouble is that people using at least some other databases call
supertransactional program units "stored procedures". Maybe we need a
keyword to designate supertransactional behaviour, but if we call them
anything but procedures there is likely to be endless confusion, ISTM,
especially if we have something called a procedure which is never
supertransactional.
cheers
andrew