| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2021-06-01 01:28:06 |
| Message-ID: | efe55e8d2d83c3761e46789fa86cdc4b013a7ba6.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 15:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If I have two procedures
> > p1(IN int, IN int, OUT int, OUT int)
> > p1(OUT int, OUT int)
> > then a DROP, or ALTER, or GRANT, etc. on p1(int, int) should operate on
> > the second one in a spec-compliant implementation, but you propose to
> > have it operate on the first one. That kind of discrepancy would be
> > really bad to have.
>
> We already have that situation for functions. I think having procedures
> work differently from functions is much worse than your complaint here;
> and I do not see why being spec-compliant for one case when we are not
> for the other is a good situation to be in.
+1
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-01 01:41:09 | Re: Alias collision in `refresh materialized view concurrently` |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-01 01:14:44 | Re: be-secure-gssapi.c and auth.c with setenv() not compatible on Windows |