2010/9/9 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2010/9/9 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >>> 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. > > It's *not* trivial, not at all. You are ignoring all of the semantic > implications. Should foo(IN x int, OUT y int) be considered different > from, and thus allowed to exist at the same time as, foo(IN x int, > OUT y float)? If so, how do you represent that in the catalogs? > Possibly more to the point, any such decision means that it'll be > impossible to call any stored procedure without fully specifying the > types of output arguments as well as input arguments, else the system > can't tell which procedure you meant to call. That doesn't sound like > a notational improvement to me.
it can be a foo(int, int) and foo(int, float) in catalog. These lists are distinct so there are not a problem. > > I'm with Robert: this would be a huge extra complication for a > remarkably small amount of benefit. > I don't agree - you see a procedure like some void function, and it's not true Regards Pavel > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
