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: 2021-05-26 17:28:07
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> AFAICT, your patch does not main the property that
> corresponds to
> DROP PROCEDURE p1(int, int)
> which would be bad.

Why? If it actually works that way right now, I'd maintain
strenously that it's broken. The latter should be referring
to a procedure with two IN arguments. Even if the SQL spec
allows fuzziness about that, we cannot afford to, because we
have a more generous view of overloading than the spec does.
(As far as I could tell from looking at the spec yesterday,
they think that you aren't allowed to have two procedures
with the same name/schema and same number of arguments,
regardless of the details of those arguments. Up with that
I will not put.)

> I'm not opposed to reverting the feature if we can't find a good
> solution in a hurry.

I'm not looking to revert the feature. I mainly want a saner catalog
representation, and less inconsistency in object naming (which is
tightly tied to the first thing).

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhihong Yu 2021-05-26 17:35:00 Re: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-05-26 16:45:38 Re: Replacing pg_depend PIN entries with a fixed range check