| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments |
| Date: | 2021-05-24 13:45:32 |
| Message-ID: | 884455.1621863932@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 5/23/21 8:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Before I spend too much time on it though, I wanted to mention that
>> it includes undoing 2453ea142's decision to include OUT arguments
>> in pg_proc.proargtypes for procedures (but not for any other kind of
>> routine). I thought that was a terrible decision and I'm very happy
>> to revert it, but is anyone likely to complain loudly?
> Possibly, Will take a look. IIRC we have based some other things on this.
There's 9213462c5, which I *think* just needs to be reverted along
with much of 2453ea142. But I don't have a JDBC setup to check it
with.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2021-05-24 13:53:19 | Issue on catalogs.sgml |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-05-24 13:22:58 | Re: rand48 replacement |