| 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: | 2021-05-31 20:25:19 |
| Message-ID: | 2721904.1622492719@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> I don't see that.
> It's under CREATE PROCEDURE. 11.60 <SQL-invoked routine> SR 20 says
Oh... just noticed something else relevant to this discussion: SR 13
in the same section saith
13) If R is an SQL-invoked function, then no <SQL parameter declaration>
in NPL shall contain a <parameter mode>.
In other words, the spec does not have OUT or INOUT parameters for
functions. So, again, their notion of what is sufficient to identify
a routine is based on a very different model than what we are using.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2021-05-31 21:39:22 | Re: Allowing to create LEAKPROOF functions to non-superuser |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-05-31 20:16:52 | Re: storing an explicit nonce |