Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure
Date: 2010-09-09 21:07:41
Message-ID: 6465.1284066461@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> To be honest, I am already pretty unhappy with
> the changes that make it impossible to redefined foo(a int) as
> foo(anteater int), which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do
> but which is now forbidden because someone MIGHT have called the
> function as foo(a := 3), and I certainly don't want to make it any
> worse.  Whether there are actually any stored queries that call the
> function this way (or at all) is doesn't matter: it's not allowed.

BTW, before anyone suggests it: it wouldn't really improve matters if
we were to allow renaming so long as we couldn't find any such calls in
stored queries.  We don't have any ability to track calls occuring in
stored procedures, let alone on the client side; so a rename would still
put you at very substantial risk of breaking things.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-09-09 21:09:42
Subject: Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-09-09 20:59:28
Subject: Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group