Tom Lane napsal(a): <blockquote cite="mid:14669.1253412760@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Andrew Dunstan <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:andrew@dunslane.net"><andrew@dunslane.net></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Dimitri Fontaine wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">So here
arethe major points about this patch:
- it's missing the returns declaration syntax (default value could be
returns void?)
- it would be much more friendly to users if it had a default output
for queries, the returned object seems a good fit </pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre wrap=""> </pre><blockquote
type="cite"><prewrap="">Really? That wasn't my expectation at all. I expected that the code
would in effect be always returning void. I think you're moving the
goalposts a bit here. I don't think we need a RETURNS clause on it for
it to be useful. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
I think adding onto DO capabilities is something we could do later
if demand warrants. I'd prefer to underdesign it for starters than
to encrust it with features that might not be needed. </pre></blockquote><br /> Right, RETURNS can be added later
withoutbreaking any existing code for users so no problem there (same goes for removing the requirement of BEGIN ...
ENDfor example).<br /><br /><blockquote cite="mid:14669.1253412760@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">BTW, what
happenswith the current patch if you try to do a RETURN? </pre></blockquote><br /> Throws same error as function
definedwith RETURNS void.<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)</pre>
