| 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 21:29:48 |
| Message-ID: | 95308.1622755788@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 02.06.21 02:04, Tom Lane 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.
> I'm ok with this proposal.
Cool. Do you want to try to implement it, or shall I?
A question that maybe we should refer to the RMT is whether it's
too late for this sort of redesign for v14. I dislike reverting
the OUT-procedure feature altogether in v14, but perhaps that's
the sanest way to proceed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-06-03 21:36:15 | Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-03 21:22:09 | Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments |