| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Darren Duncan" <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
| Date: | 2010-09-09 21:26:11 |
| Message-ID: | 4C890AA302000025000354AD@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm with Robert: this would be a huge extra complication for a
> remarkably small amount of benefit.
This is probably heresy, but unless it's required by the standard or
drop-dead simple to allow, I'd be fine with *not* supporting
overloading of stored procedure names based on argument types at
all. I can see the need for to support it for functions; I can't
think where it would be all that useful for stored procedures. If
unique stored procedure names were required, it seems we might be
able to allow assignment casts on parameters, which might be more
useful.
I'm probably missing some good use case....
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-09 21:40:40 | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-09 21:13:32 | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |