| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls |
| Date: | 2004-09-16 03:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1095306044.31833.34.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 01:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway. I'd like to see
> a facility available in our SQL, e.g.
>
> CALL foo();
>
> with the restriction that foo() should be declared to return void.
I think these are two distinct issues. The patch I sent along is
intended to make it more natural to invoke functions (and eventually
procedures) from PL/PgSQL, whereas adding support for CALL to SQL is
part of proper support for stored procedures. Gavin and I are hoping to
send a proposal for the latter to -hackers in a few days.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-09-16 04:20:36 | Re: libpq and prepared statements progress for 8.0 |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-09-16 02:47:15 | Re: PostgreSQL Core Committee Welcomes New Member |