AW: SQL99 functions

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: SQL99 functions
Date: 2000-06-27 13:39:13
Message-ID: 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA599A@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > I see mention in SQL99 of function definitions which can
> have IN, OUT,
> > and INOUT arguments. Any thoughts on how this could be supported in
> > Postgres?
>
> I noticed that but haven't quite figured out how it's supposed to fit
> into the SQL worldview at all. Surely
> SELECT foo(x) FROM table
> shouldn't silently mutate into an UPDATE depending on how foo() is
> declared. Exactly where is a function with OUT args useful in SQL?

This is something Oracle pushed through, because that is how they do it.
I prefer the usual way of doing such things where you have parameters
and return values to functions (but return values should be multi column
and multi row capable).

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2000-06-27 13:39:41 Mailing List Archive Problem?
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-06-27 13:27:03 AW: Big 7.1 open items