On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> so I can to write >>> >>> CREATE PROCEDURE foo(OUT a int) >>> ... >>> >>> and >>> CREATE PROCEDURE foo(OUT a varchar) >>> ... >>> >>> and then when I use a statement CALL is correct procedure selected >>> >>> CALL foo(textvariable) >> >> That seems like a lot of complexity for no real benefit, to me. > > no, you can to specify a expected result type - it's very for some > convert or import functions. So we expect so out procedures will > supports to OUT parameters, then implementation of this mechanism has > minimal overhead to current implementation. Just to add types of OUT > parameters to searching algorithm. > > More - it is just consistent with overloading idea. Why the OUT > parameters should be removed from procedure parameters?
I think the question is whether there's something broken enough about the current system to warrant doing something different, and I guess my answer would be no. To be honest, I am already pretty unhappy with the changes that make it impossible to redefined foo(a int) as foo(anteater int), which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do but which is now forbidden because someone MIGHT have called the function as foo(a := 3), and I certainly don't want to make it any worse. Whether there are actually any stored queries that call the function this way (or at all) is doesn't matter: it's not allowed. So for a marginal notational convenience we have created dependency hell, where you must drop and recreate every dependent object to perform a trivial renaming. I think this is really quite horrible and would have argued against accepting this patch at the time if I'd realized what effect it was going to have. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
