On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> CREATE PROCEDURE foo()
> BEGIN
> SELECT 1,2;
> SELECT 2;
> SELECT 3,4
> END;
>
> And is not strange expect a result
>
> CALL foo()
>
> 1,2
> 2
> 3,4
>
> Procedure is a script (batch) moved to server side for better performance and better reuse.
I am not familiar with procedures, being a long time Postgres guy, but you’re right that it never occurred to me that
theybe thought of as batch files.
Still, this is PL/pgSQL we’re talking about, not TSQL or SQL/PSM anything else. Perhaps your syntax suggestions make
sensethere, in which case, when you develop such functionality to Postgres, you would need to figure out how to get
PERFORMto work with CTEs. But PL/pgSQL requires an explicit key word to return data, and I am hard pressed to see why
thatwould change when it is used in procedures. And that makes PERFORM unnecessary, IME.
> You should not thinking about procedures like void functions, because it is a little bit different creature - and
voidfunctions is significantly limited in functionality.
>
> My proposal is consistent - no result goes to /dev/null without special mark. It is disabled (in function) or it goes
toclient (in procedures).
Consistent, yes. But I’m not convinced -- and I’m *certainly* not convinced that PERFORM should be required to discard
queryresults in PL/pgSQL *functions*, which is the issue on the table now.
Best,
David
