Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures
Date: 2018-01-02 16:47:45
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I agree that we need this, but using prorettype = InvalidOid to do it
> might not be the best way, because it only works for procedures that
> don't return anything. If a procedure could return, say, an integer,

Good point, because that is possible in some other systems, and so
somebody is going to ask for it at some point.

> Anyway, I think it would be better to invent an explicit way to
> represent whether something is a procedure rather than relying on
> overloading prorettype to tell us.

+1 --- seems like a new bool column is the thing. Or may we should merge
"proisprocedure" with proisagg and proiswindow into an enum prokind?
Although that would break some existing client-side code.

PS: I still strongly disagree with allowing prorettype to be zero.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-01-02 16:53:36 Re: Package version in PG_VERSION and version()
Previous Message David Steele 2018-01-02 16:43:14 Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask