| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4f540e38-febf-87cd-6bd1-ac6942e94d11@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/3/21 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
So AIUI your suggestion is that ALTER/DROP ROUTINE will look for an
ambiguity. If it doesn't find one it proceeds, otherwise it complains in
which case the user will have to fall back to ALTER/DROP
FUNCTION/PROCEDURE. Is that right? It seems a reasonable approach, and I
wouldn't expect to find too many ambiguous cases in practice.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-03 19:53:59 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-06-03 19:24:31 | Re: security_definer_search_path GUC |