Re: Seeking Clarification on Function Definitions in PostgreSQL Extensions

On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 1:57 PM David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But I stand by returning OUT params and records at the same time.
>>>
>>
>> You mean you dislike adding the optional returns clause when output
>> parameters exist?
>>
>
> Correct. It breaks the distinction between function and procedure.
>

How so?

The two distinctions are functions can produce sets while procedures get
transaction control.

They both can produce a single multi-column output record. The presence or
absence of the optional return clause on a function definition doesn’t
change that fact.

>
>
>> Because the out parameters and the “record” represent the exact same
>> thing.
>>
>
> 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.

David J.