On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> 2013/6/11 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: >> > And this still has next-to-nothing to do with the specific proposal that >> > was put forward. >> > >> > I'd like actual procedures too, but it's a completely different and >> > distinct thing from making DO blocks able to return something. >> >> I think so it is related - we talk about future form of DO statement - >> or about future form of server side scripting. > > I don't believe there's any intent to ever have DO used for stored > procedures. Not only are stored procedures deserving of their own > top-level command (eg: CALL, as has been discussed before..), but I > believe they would necessairly have different enough semantics that > shoe-horning them into DO would end up breaking backwards compatibility.
I was not arguing to shoe-horn them into DO, but rather that the proposal is shoe-horning into DO what should be in CALL (but I'm having second thoughts about that -- CALL AFAIK can't do in-line code blocks). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
