Tom Lane napsal(a):
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
So here are the major points about this patch:
- it's missing the returns declaration syntax (default value could be
returns void?)
- it would be much more friendly to users if it had a default output
for queries, the returned object seems a good fit
Really? That wasn't my expectation at all. I expected that the code
would in effect be always returning void. I think you're moving the
goalposts a bit here. I don't think we need a RETURNS clause on it for
it to be useful.
I think adding onto DO capabilities is something we could do later
if demand warrants. I'd prefer to underdesign it for starters than
to encrust it with features that might not be needed.
Right, RETURNS can be added later without breaking any existing code for
users so no problem there (same goes for removing the requirement of
BEGIN ... END for example).
BTW, what happens with the current patch if you try to do a RETURN?
Throws same error as function defined with RETURNS void.
--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)
