Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 08.06.21 01:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here is said update (rolled up into one patch this time; maybe that will
>> avoid the apply problems you had).

> This patch looks good to me.

Thanks for reviewing!

> A minor comment: You changed the docs in some places like this:
> - </itemizedlist></para>
> + </itemizedlist>
> + </para>
> The original layout is required to avoid spurious whitespace in the
> output (mainly affecting man pages).

Ugh, that seems like a toolchain bug. We're certainly not consistent
about formatting things that way. But I'll refrain from changing these.

>> I noticed that there is one other loose end in the patch: should
>> LookupFuncName() really be passing OBJECT_ROUTINE to
>> LookupFuncNameInternal()?

> It appears that all uses of LookupFuncName() are lookups of internal
> support functions (with one exception in pltcl), so using
> OBJECT_FUNCTION would be okay.

OK, I'll take a closer look at that.

> It might be good to keep the argument order of LookupFuncNameInternal()
> consistent with LookupFuncWithArgs() with respect to the new ObjectType
> argument.

Good point, thanks.

regards, tom lane