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

Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?
Date: 2005-04-05 13:01:19
Message-ID: 1112706080.26170.278.camel@camel (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 03:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> CREATE FUNCTION sum_n_product(x int, y int, OUT sum int, OUT prod int) AS $$
> >> BEGIN
> >> sum := x + y;
> >> prod := x * y;
> >> RETURN;
> >> END;
> >> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
> > The above code example do not have any RETURNS clause, does that mean that 
> > it defaults to RETURNS void?
> No, it effectively "RETURNS record", where the particular record type is
> implied by the set of output parameters.  See my previous proposal.

While it is useless in this example, istm it only makes things more
confusing to require return in some cases but not in others.  Is there
some technical advantage to dropping it?

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2005-04-05 14:41:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?
Previous:From: Martín MarquésDate: 2005-04-05 12:25:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group