Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

From: "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures
Date: 2017-11-14 17:56:23
Message-ID: 83b39249-a6f0-4bd8-9ba6-cbfadc32f810@manitou-mail.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Do we really want the existence of a function foo(int) to mean
> that you can't create a SQL procedure named
> foo and taking one int argument?

Isn't it pretty much implied by the
ALTER | DROP ROUTINE foo(...)
commands where foo(...) may be either a procedure
or a function? It doesn't look like it could be both.

Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2017-11-14 17:59:05 Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
Previous Message Joe Conway 2017-11-14 17:53:23 Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Bug ?