Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Date
Msg-id 16643.1622744975@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Hmm, actually we could make step 2 a shade tighter: if a candidate
> routine is a function, match against proargtypes.  If it's a procedure,
> match against coalesce(proallargtypes, proargtypes).  If we find
> multiple matches, raise ambiguity error.

Where do we stand on this topic?

I'm willing to have a go at implementing things that way, but
time's a-wasting.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Next
From: Isaac Morland
Date:
Subject: Re: security_definer_search_path GUC