Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andrew Dunstan
Тема Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Дата
Msg-id 4f540e38-febf-87cd-6bd1-ac6942e94d11@dunslane.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 6/3/21 2:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I 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.
> Where do we stand on this topic?
>
> I'm willing to have a go at implementing things that way, but
> time's a-wasting.
>
>             



So AIUI your suggestion is that ALTER/DROP ROUTINE will look for an
ambiguity. If it doesn't find one it proceeds, otherwise it complains in
which case the user will have to fall back to ALTER/DROP
FUNCTION/PROCEDURE. Is that right? It seems a reasonable approach, and I
wouldn't expect to find too many ambiguous cases in practice.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: security_definer_search_path GUC
Следующее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend