From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com>, raf <raf(at)raf(dot)org>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, "Bysani, Ram" <rbysani(at)informatica(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Need help with clarification on stored procedure support in PostGreSQL database |
Date: | 2021-03-09 23:16:45 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb42X2g6ZHTHotjquOYR3RcP8udQ+8u9HRJrCfaS_S_gA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The omission of the "OUT" parameter mode seems intentional since at
> present
> > our procedures do not support OUT mode parameters.
>
> Um, I just created one. I think this *used* to be true, and this bit of
> the docs didn't get fixed. If I back-patch this, I'll have to research
> when it changed.
>
Five months ago it seems.
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/2453ea142233ae57af452019c3b9a443dad1cdd0
The patch and email thread for that commit make me pause, though I cannot
put into words why.
>
> > Instead of "The difference" or "One difference" I would suggest:
> "However,
> > a procedure does not return a value, so there is no return type
> > declaration; though a procedure can declare INOUT (but not plain OUT)
> > parameters."
>
> Not sure if that's an improvement.
>
The "however" part is probably a wash; I just dislike seeing a count
started and not having an ending and thus being left in a state of "what
didn't they include that's important".
The part about commenting about OUT/INOUT parameters still working even
though there is no return provide complete coverage of the
differences/similarities between functions and procedures with respect to
passing back data to the caller.
>
> > Relocating the links to the description instead of usage is good. The
> > additional procedure link after the examples seems redundant,
> particularly
> > as the linked to location doesn't actually have more examples.
>
> I was modeling that on the existing pattern in create_function.sgml,
> which has similar verbiage in the EXAMPLES section. But I suppose
> we could drop that if we have a link in the description section.
>
>
Yeah, it was an existing deficiency, but being a bit more invasive seems
warranted, and as you say it is be located partly because it is much higher
level content being pointed to (hence description, not usage/examples).
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-09 23:50:43 | Re: Need help with clarification on stored procedure support in PostGreSQL database |
Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2021-03-09 23:09:16 | Re: unexpected character used as group separator by to_char |