Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Date
Msg-id cfc3c0c0-79c5-587a-68c2-651413899868@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
List pgsql-hackers
On 24.05.21 02:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I think we ought to fix this so that OUT-only arguments are ignored
>> when calling from SQL not plpgsql.
> 
> I'm working on a patch to make it act that way.  I've got some issues
> yet to fix with named arguments (which seem rather undertested BTW,
> since the patch is passing check-world even though I know it will
> crash instantly on cases with CALL+named-args+out-only-args).
> 
> Before I spend too much time on it though, I wanted to mention that
> it includes undoing 2453ea142's decision to include OUT arguments
> in pg_proc.proargtypes for procedures (but not for any other kind of
> routine).  I thought that was a terrible decision and I'm very happy
> to revert it, but is anyone likely to complain loudly?

I don't understand why you want to change this.  The argument resolution 
of CALL is specified in the SQL standard; we shouldn't just make up our 
own system.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Assertion failure while streaming toasted data
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Add ZSON extension to /contrib/