| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-v11 appearances of the word "procedure" in v11 docs |
| Date: | 2018-08-16 22:57:44 |
| Message-ID: | e904a944-fc12-aeab-c709-7771cb9c5a17@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14/08/18 22:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> What should we do with the use of the keyword PROCEDURE in the CREATE
>> OPERATOR and CREATE TRIGGER syntaxes?
>
> We're kinda stuck with that. We could add FUNCTION as a preferred
> synonym, perhaps, but I doubt that'd really be worth the trouble.
If someone were to waste their time doing it, would we want FUNCTION or
ROUTINE?
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-08-16 23:10:56 | Re: Index Skip Scan |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-08-16 22:56:00 | Re: Incorrect error handling for two-phase state files resulting in data loss |