From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments |
Date: | 2021-05-24 12:22:05 |
Message-ID: | 1f5997a4-aba5-2f91-f5a4-190c0aef005d@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/23/21 8:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I think we ought to fix this so that OUT-only arguments are ignored
>> when calling from SQL not plpgsql.
> I'm working on a patch to make it act that way. I've got some issues
> yet to fix with named arguments (which seem rather undertested BTW,
> since the patch is passing check-world even though I know it will
> crash instantly on cases with CALL+named-args+out-only-args).
>
> Before I spend too much time on it though, I wanted to mention that
> it includes undoing 2453ea142's decision to include OUT arguments
> in pg_proc.proargtypes for procedures (but not for any other kind of
> routine). I thought that was a terrible decision and I'm very happy
> to revert it, but is anyone likely to complain loudly?
>
>
Possibly, Will take a look. IIRC we have based some other things on this.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2021-05-24 12:30:16 | Re: rand48 replacement |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-05-24 11:39:16 | Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY |