Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures
Date
Msg-id 32ceef13-595d-a698-128c-b90ab9494a52@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/8/17 09:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 10/31/17 14:23, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Why not use VOIDOID for the prorettype value?
> 
>> We need a way to distinguish functions that are callable by SELECT and
>> procedures that are callable by CALL.
> 
> Do procedures of this ilk belong in pg_proc at all?  It seems like a large
> fraction of the attributes tracked in pg_proc are senseless for this
> purpose.  A new catalog might be a better approach.

The common functionality between functions and procedures is like 98%
[citation needed], so they definitely belong there, even more so than
aggregates, for example.

> In any case, I buy none of your arguments that 0 is a better choice than a
> new pseudotype.

Well, I haven't heard any reasons for doing it differently, so I can't
judge the relative merits of either approach.  Ultimately, it would be a
minor detail as far as the code is concerned, I think.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures
Next
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort