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: 2021-06-10 13:57:15
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2021-06-10 14:00:21 Re: Duplicate history file?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-06-10 13:56:51 Re: Race condition in recovery?