Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

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: 2021-06-04 21:07:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> It would likely not be very hard to fix pg_dump to include explicit
> IN markers. I don't think this results in a compatibility problem
> for existing dumps, since they won't be taken from databases in
> which there are procedures with OUT arguments.

Actually, all we have to do to fix pg_dump is to tweak ruleutils.c
(although this has some effects on existing regression test outputs,
of course). So maybe it's not as bad as all that.

Here's a draft-quality patch to handle ALTER/DROP this way. I think
the code may be finished, but I've not looked at the docs at all.

0001 is the same patch I posted earlier, 0002 is a delta to enable
handling ALTER/DROP per spec.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-reconsider-out-args-2.patch text/x-diff 73.7 KB
0002-reallow-SQL-drop-syntax.patch text/x-diff 26.2 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2021-06-04 21:12:43 Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)
Previous Message David Christensen 2021-06-04 20:53:10 Re: DELETE CASCADE