Timeline for How can I keep a result set without keeping the transaction open?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2013 at 20:05 | history | edited | Erwin Brandstetter |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 8, 2013 at 21:43 | vote | accept | A-K | ||
| Nov 8, 2013 at 9:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackDBAs/status/398751346578685952 | ||
| Nov 8, 2013 at 1:54 | answer | added | Daniel Vérité | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 23:35 | answer | added | Erwin Brandstetter | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 23:01 | comment | added | Erwin Brandstetter | Please define "keep a result". What are you trying to do exactly? Most probably there is a (superior) solution without explicit cursors. | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 22:15 | comment | added | A-K | @dezso I need to use dynamic SQL, because I am required to return a flexible list of columns, submitted as a parameter. So far I only know how to accomplish that with refcursors. Do you have a better idea? | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 21:42 | comment | added | András Váczi | You can see there only the results of the latest statement. A possibility could be that you export the output and commit afterwards. By the way, what is your plan with this refcursor thing? I've never felt the need for it so far :) | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 19:02 | history | asked | A-K | CC BY-SA 3.0 |