Re: Proposal: make "opaque" obsolete

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: make "opaque" obsolete
Date: 2002-08-20 19:46:51
Message-ID: 29478.1029872811@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Less obviously, void_in should succeed (and return nothing
>> interesting, probably just a zero datum; it can ignore its input). This
>> allows plpgsql functions to be defined to return VOID.

> Does this require additional work to the plpgsql grammar?

I suspect you'd need to say "return 0" (or return anything-at-all,
pretty much) to make it fly with the current plpgsql sources. This
is a tad ugly but I think we can live with it until someone wants to
fix it. If we have type void then for sure people will want to use
it for plpgsql functions; there are plenty of cases where you run a
plpgsql function just for side-effects.

> I think we should throw the notices right away, although this makes me
> wonder in general about upgrade path. Are we ever planning to make that
> an error, and if so, how are we going to handle functions that are coming
> from previous versions where it was okay?

We can't make it an error until sufficiently far down the road that we
don't care about forward compatibility from 7.2-or-before dump files.
That'll be a long while, probably.

Throwing a notice right away is okay with me personally, but I wanted to
see what other people thought...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-08-20 19:49:59 Re: Large file support available
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD 2002-08-20 19:43:11 Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in