Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/30/17 15:50, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> postgres=# \df
>> List of functions
>> Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type
>> --------+------+------------------+---------------------+------
>> public | bar | integer | i integer | func
>> public | foo | | i integer | proc
>> (2 rows)
>>
>> Should this now be called a "List of routines"?
>
> Maybe, but I hesitate to go around and change all mentions of "function"
> like that. That might just confuse people.

Yeah, this is not unlike the problems we have deciding whether to say
"relation" or "table". It's a problem that comes when most foos are
bars but there are multiple types of exotic foo that are not bars.
That's pretty much the case here -- most functions are probably just
functions, but a few might be procedures or aggregates. I think
leaving this and similar cases as "functions" is fine. I wonder
whether it was really necessary for the SQL standards committee (or
Oracle) to invent both procedures and functions to represent very
similar things, but they did.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company