Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

On 03.06.21 23:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 02.06.21 02:04, Tom Lane 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.
> 
>> I'm ok with this proposal.
> 
> Cool.  Do you want to try to implement it, or shall I?
> 
> A question that maybe we should refer to the RMT is whether it's
> too late for this sort of redesign for v14.  I dislike reverting
> the OUT-procedure feature altogether in v14, but perhaps that's
> the sanest way to proceed.

I'll take a look at this.  I'm not clear on the beta schedule, but the 
next beta is probably still a few weeks away.