Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

On Monday, May 31, 2021, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:

> On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 15:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If I have two procedures
> > > p1(IN int, IN int, OUT int, OUT int)
> > > p1(OUT int, OUT int)
> > > then a DROP, or ALTER, or GRANT, etc. on p1(int, int) should operate
> on
> > > the second one in a spec-compliant implementation, but you propose to
> > > have it operate on the first one. That kind of discrepancy would be
> > > really bad to have.
> >
> > We already have that situation for functions. I think having procedures
> > work differently from functions is much worse than your complaint here;
> > and I do not see why being spec-compliant for one case when we are not
> > for the other is a good situation to be in.
>
> +1
>

When this discussion concludes a review of the compatibility sections of
the create/drop “routine” reference pages would be appreciated.

I agree that being consistent with our long-standing function behavior is
more important than being standards compliant. FWIW this being DDL lessens
any non-compliance reservations I may have.

David J.