Re: pg_background extension help
Stephen Anderson <[email protected]> Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:56:19 +1100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.novice |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CADn1m+4BAk6YN=gtxfEg6bLoy2DLxVf5i=qskiZOfrAaurR6fA@mail.gmail.com> |
Thanks Tom, I've tried contacting Vibhor but had no luck. With further digging it seems that not much at all comes back from the pg_background_result function. I've written a wrapper function around the call that saves the output parameter values into a local table so they can be retrieved by the calling routine. it's ugly but it works :-) Steve. On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 02:00, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen Anderson <[email protected]> writes: > > I'm porting over an Oracle application to postgres and by and large its > > been relatively seamless. One of the challenges I've hit is replicating > > the functions/procedures that utilise Oracle's autonomous transaction > > functionality. I've found Vibhor's pg_background extension ( > > https://github.com/vibhorkum/pg_background) and successfully created it > in > > my instance and this seems pretty damn close to what I need. > Unfortunately > > I've hit a bit of a snag around getting parameter values back. So to the > > point of all this :-) > > I know diddly-squat about pg_background, but judging from the symptoms > you mention, it's not very smart about functions declared to return > RECORD, which is what's happening under the hood if you use multiple OUT > parameters. You might have better luck if you create a named composite > type and declare the function to return that (which'll require some > internal notational changes in the function, but nothing too awful). > > Or perhaps not. In any case, it'd be an idea to take this up with the > extension's author; maybe it can be improved in future releases. > > regards, tom lane >