From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | AW: SQL99 functions |
Date: | 2000-06-27 13:39:13 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA599A@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > I see mention in SQL99 of function definitions which can
> have IN, OUT,
> > and INOUT arguments. Any thoughts on how this could be supported in
> > Postgres?
>
> I noticed that but haven't quite figured out how it's supposed to fit
> into the SQL worldview at all. Surely
> SELECT foo(x) FROM table
> shouldn't silently mutate into an UPDATE depending on how foo() is
> declared. Exactly where is a function with OUT args useful in SQL?
This is something Oracle pushed through, because that is how they do it.
I prefer the usual way of doing such things where you have parameters
and return values to functions (but return values should be multi column
and multi row capable).
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-06-27 13:39:41 | Mailing List Archive Problem? |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-06-27 13:27:03 | AW: Big 7.1 open items |