| 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: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Clarification on Function Definitions in PostgreSQL Extensions |
| Date: | 2024-06-18 20:04:25 |
| Message-ID: | 4184542.1718741065@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> What's the purpose? Legacy of not having procedures?
> So people can have a style guide that says always specify a returns clause
> on function definitions.
To my mind, the reason we allow RETURNS together with OUT parameter(s)
is so there's a place to write SETOF if you want that.
Yes, the RETURNS TABLE syntax is somewhat redundant with RETURNS
SETOF. Blame the SQL standard for that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2024-06-18 20:57:28 | Re: Restore of a reference database kills the auto analyze processing. |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-06-18 19:31:23 | Re: fail to install postgresql15 on Alma9 |