Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 11/20/17 16:25, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> We should document where returned values in PL procedures are ignored
>> (plperl, pltcl) and where they are not (plpython, plpgsql). Maybe we
>> should think about possibly being more consistent here, too.

> Yeah, suggestions?  I think it makes sense in PL/pgSQL and PL/Python to
> disallow return values that would end up being ignored, because the only
> way a return value could arise is if user code explicit calls
> RETURN/return.  However, in Perl, the return value is the result of the
> last statement, so prohibiting a return value would be very
> inconvenient.  (Don't know about Tcl.)  So maybe the current behavior
> makes sense.  Documentation is surely needed.

Tcl has the same approach as Perl: the return value of a proc is the
same as the value of its last command.  There's no such thing as a
proc that doesn't return a value.
        regards, tom lane