Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Date: 2021-06-03 18:29:35
Message-ID: 16643.1622744975@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Hmm, actually we could make step 2 a shade tighter: if a candidate
> routine is a function, match against proargtypes. If it's a procedure,
> match against coalesce(proallargtypes, proargtypes). If we find
> multiple matches, raise ambiguity error.

Where do we stand on this topic?

I'm willing to have a go at implementing things that way, but
time's a-wasting.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Isaac Morland 2021-06-03 18:42:04 Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Previous Message Mark Dilger 2021-06-03 18:25:13 Re: security_definer_search_path GUC