Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures
Date: 2017-11-14 23:14:45
Message-ID: 21776.1510701285@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/14/17 11:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Do we really want the existence of
>> a function foo(int) to mean that you can't create a SQL procedure named
>> foo and taking one int argument?

> Yes, that is defined that way by the SQL standard.

Meh. OK, then it has to be one catalog.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-11-14 23:27:59 Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures
Previous Message David Rowley 2017-11-14 23:13:21 Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning