| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2021-06-04 19:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | a894cec7-1f3e-eb1d-e662-a548112db2ba@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03.06.21 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
I'll take a look at this. I'm not clear on the beta schedule, but the
next beta is probably still a few weeks away.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-04 19:36:03 | Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments |
| Previous Message | Jim Mlodgenski | 2021-06-04 19:31:54 | Re: Support for CREATE MODULE? |