| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |
| Date: | 2017-11-22 18:10:16 |
| Message-ID: | 27201.1511374216@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/20/17 16:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> We should document where returned values in PL procedures are ignored
>> (plperl, pltcl) and where they are not (plpython, plpgsql). Maybe we
>> should think about possibly being more consistent here, too.
> Yeah, suggestions? I think it makes sense in PL/pgSQL and PL/Python to
> disallow return values that would end up being ignored, because the only
> way a return value could arise is if user code explicit calls
> RETURN/return. However, in Perl, the return value is the result of the
> last statement, so prohibiting a return value would be very
> inconvenient. (Don't know about Tcl.) So maybe the current behavior
> makes sense. Documentation is surely needed.
Tcl has the same approach as Perl: the return value of a proc is the
same as the value of its last command. There's no such thing as a
proc that doesn't return a value.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-11-22 18:46:12 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-22 18:01:22 | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |