Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?

From: Robert Treat
Subject: Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 1112706080.26170.278.camel@camel
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Tom Lane)
Responses: Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Tom Lane)
List: pgsql-hackers

Tree view

Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Christopher Kings-Lynne, )
 Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Dennis Bjorklund, )
  Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Robert Treat, )
    Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Tom Lane, )
     Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Oleg Bartunov, )
      Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?  (Terry Yapt, )

On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 03:43, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dennis Bjorklund <> writes:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> CREATE FUNCTION sum_n_product(x int, y int, OUT sum int, OUT prod int) AS $$
> >> BEGIN
> >> sum := x + y;
> >> prod := x * y;
> >> RETURN;
> >> END;
> >> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
> 
> > The above code example do not have any RETURNS clause, does that mean that 
> > it defaults to RETURNS void?
> 
> No, it effectively "RETURNS record", where the particular record type is
> implied by the set of output parameters.  See my previous proposal.
> 

While it is useless in this example, istm it only makes things more
confusing to require return in some cases but not in others.  Is there
some technical advantage to dropping it?


Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL




pgsql-hackers by date:

From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we still require RETURN in plpgsql?
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Vacuum time degrading