Tom Lane writes:
> I'd like to see us *not* overload "opaque" with yet another meaning;
> see past rants on subject. But as long as there was a distinguishable
> representation of "returns void" in pg_proc, I'd see no problem with the
> above.
I am aware of this concern. However, 0 is the most natural way to encode
"nothing" in PostgreSQL. Moreover, it would be desirable to be able to
declare trigger "routines" as procedures rather than opaque-returning
functions, so to preserve compatibility we'd have to make them equivalent.
To un-overload type OID 0, the unknown and C string types should be
changed to other numbers.
> plpgsql presently spells "CALL" as "PERFORM"; should we stick with that
> precedent?
I think not, because SQL99 says it's CALL (part 2, 15.1).
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
