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 95308.1622755788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 02.06.21 02:04, Tom Lane 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.

> I'm ok with this proposal.

Cool.  Do you want to try to implement it, or shall I?

A question that maybe we should refer to the RMT is whether it's
too late for this sort of redesign for v14.  I dislike reverting
the OUT-procedure feature altogether in v14, but perhaps that's
the sanest way to proceed.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD