| From: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures |
| Date: | 2017-11-14 17:56:23 |
| Message-ID: | 83b39249-a6f0-4bd8-9ba6-cbfadc32f810@manitou-mail.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Do we really want the existence of a function foo(int) to mean
> that you can't create a SQL procedure named
> foo and taking one int argument?
Isn't it pretty much implied by the
ALTER | DROP ROUTINE foo(...)
commands where foo(...) may be either a procedure
or a function? It doesn't look like it could be both.
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2017-11-14 17:59:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2017-11-14 17:53:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Row Level Security Bug ? |