On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11/30/17 15:50, Thomas Munro wrote: >> postgres=# \df >> List of functions >> Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type >> --------+------+------------------+---------------------+------ >> public | bar | integer | i integer | func >> public | foo | | i integer | proc >> (2 rows) >> >> Should this now be called a "List of routines"? > > Maybe, but I hesitate to go around and change all mentions of "function" > like that. That might just confuse people.
Yeah, this is not unlike the problems we have deciding whether to say "relation" or "table". It's a problem that comes when most foos are bars but there are multiple types of exotic foo that are not bars. That's pretty much the case here -- most functions are probably just functions, but a few might be procedures or aggregates. I think leaving this and similar cases as "functions" is fine. I wonder whether it was really necessary for the SQL standards committee (or Oracle) to invent both procedures and functions to represent very similar things, but they did. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
