Re: show() function
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: show() function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0206272307380.1018-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: show() function (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: show() function
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
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
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: