From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Prajval Poojari <ppoojari(at)erwin(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14545: Unable to retrieve parameter mode 'VARIADIC' |
Date: | 2017-02-14 23:10:53 |
Message-ID: | 1159.1487113853@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't have access to an authoritative definition for what the allowed
> values for information_schema.parameters.parameter_mode are.
SQL2011 saith
CONSTRAINT PARAMETER_MODE_CHECK
CHECK (
PARAMETER_MODE IN
( 'IN', 'OUT', 'INOUT' ) ),
> The fact that our "VARIADIC" mode maps to "IN" on the information schema is
> not accidental. The question is whether it is out-of-date.
Not that I can see. SQL doesn't have VARIADIC, so there's no way to
represent that a parameter is variadic within the information_schema.
This is generally true for all sorts of nonstandard features that PG has:
there's just no way to find out about them through the information_schema,
and there isn't going to be because making those views behave in
nonstandard ways would largely defeat the point of having them.
> Is there a reason you don't just use the PostgreSQL catalogs? Are you
> aware of other implementations of information schema that have this level
> of detail?
mysql, at least, feels free to extend the information_schema in
nonstandard ways. Our project policy is that they're doing it wrong.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-02-14 23:17:41 | Re: BUG #14545: Unable to retrieve parameter mode 'VARIADIC' |
Previous Message | Prajval Poojari | 2017-02-14 22:58:45 | Re: BUG #14545: Unable to retrieve parameter mode 'VARIADIC' |