| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls |
| Date: | 2004-09-15 16:45:33 |
| Message-ID: | 414871AD.70601@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway. I'd like to see
> a facility available in our SQL, e.g.
>
> CALL foo();
>
> with the restriction that foo() should be declared to return void. Of
> course, that doesn't remove the keyword requirement as Neil wanted, but
> doing that would probably require a lot more work - we'd have to make
> procedures a whole lot closer to first-class objects.
I agree with this, except that foo() should be a PROCEDURE, not a FUNCTION.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James William Pye | 2004-09-15 16:48:10 | Re: banner vs version |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-15 16:38:59 | Re: PG_exception_stack |