| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL procedures |
| Date: | 2017-11-08 14:54:17 |
| Message-ID: | 17774.1510152857@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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.
In any case, I buy none of your arguments that 0 is a better choice than a
new pseudotype.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-08 15:04:47 | Re: SQL procedures |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2017-11-08 14:46:37 | Re: SQL procedures |