Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
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: 2021-06-07 23:10:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Hmm, these are atop HEAD from a week or so back. The cfbot seems to
> think they still apply. In any case, I was about to spend some effort
> on the docs, so I'll post an updated version soon (hopefully today).

Here is said update (rolled up into one patch this time; maybe that will
avoid the apply problems you had).

I noticed that there is one other loose end in the patch: should
LookupFuncName() really be passing OBJECT_ROUTINE to
LookupFuncNameInternal()? This matches its old behavior, in which
no particular routine type restriction was applied; but I think that
the callers are nearly all expecting that only plain functions will
be returned. That's more of a possible pre-existing bug than it
is the fault of the patch, but nonetheless this might be a good
time to resolve it.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
reconsider-out-args-4.patch text/x-diff 109.4 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-06-07 23:11:53 Re: pgsql: Support parallel btree index builds.
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2021-06-07 22:28:22 logical decoding and replication of sequences