Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: check_function_bodies: At least the description seems wrong, since we have prodedures
Date: 2021-04-10 16:09:26
Message-ID: 2339762.1618070966@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Daniel Westermann (DWE)" <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com> writes:
>> +1 for updating the description though.  We could s/function/routine/
>> where space is tight.

> Thanks for your inputs. Attached a proposal which updates the description.

I changed config.sgml's description similarly, and pushed this.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-04-10 17:56:32 Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-04-10 14:52:15 Re: SQL-standard function body