On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:37:11PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/28/18 15:45, Tom Lane wrote: >> I have reviewed this patch and attach an updated version below. >> I've rebased it up to today, fixed a few minor errors, and adopted >> most of Michael's suggestions. Also, since I remain desperately >> unhappy with putting zeroes into prorettype, I changed it to not >> do that ;-) ... now procedures have VOIDOID as their prorettype, >> and it will be substantially less painful to allow them to return >> some other scalar result in future, should we wish to. I believe >> I've found all the places that were relying on prorettype == 0 as >> a substitute for prokind == 'p'. > > I have just posted "INOUT parameters in procedures", which contains some > of those same changes. So I think we're on the same page. I will work > on consolidating this.
Thanks Peter. I have read the patch set that Tom has posted here and hunted for other inconsistencies. It seems to me that you have spotted everything. The changes in ProcedureCreate() are nice. I was wondering as well if it would be worth checking the contents of pg_proc with prorettype = 0 in the regression tests to always make sure that this never happens... Until I saw that opr_sanity.sql was actually doing already that so procedures actually are breaking that check on HEAD. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
