Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters
Date
Msg-id 200408142245.03115.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Dennis has pointed out that mixing the call-with-named-parameter
> > interface with call-by-order-of-parameters one would cause
> > confusion, and I think it would be OK to disallow this type mixing,
> > so
>
> As we've discussed on IRC, this should be the difference between a
> FUNCTION and a PROCEDURE.

Huh?  As far as I can tell, the difference between a function and a 
procedure is precisely that the latter doesn't return a value.  A 
consistent way to specify the parameters of either one would certainly 
be highly desirable.

> b) Procedures are not automatically transactional; that is,
> transactions within procedures must/can be explicit.  Among other
> things, this would allow procedures to run maintainence tasks.

I certainly want all my maintenance tasks to be transactional.  Being 
nontransactional is a fuzzy idea anyway.  You can't really run anything 
without a transaction in PostgreSQL.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres development model
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Calling PL functions with named parameters