Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinUfHyRNBOQJmbEXWy_ArpeN-pUMBuwXj+s2mCa@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: returning multiple result sets from a stored procedure (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2010/9/9 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> so I can to write >>>> >>>> CREATE PROCEDURE foo(OUT a int) >>>> ... >>>> >>>> and >>>> CREATE PROCEDURE foo(OUT a varchar) >>>> ... >>>> >>>> and then when I use a statement CALL is correct procedure selected >>>> >>>> CALL foo(textvariable) >>> >>> That seems like a lot of complexity for no real benefit, to me. >> >> no, you can to specify a expected result type - it's very for some >> convert or import functions. So we expect so out procedures will >> supports to OUT parameters, then implementation of this mechanism has >> minimal overhead to current implementation. Just to add types of OUT >> parameters to searching algorithm. >> >> More - it is just consistent with overloading idea. Why the OUT >> parameters should be removed from procedure parameters? > > I think the question is whether there's something broken enough about > the current system to warrant doing something different, and I guess > my answer would be no. To be honest, I am already pretty unhappy with > the changes that make it impossible to redefined foo(a int) as > foo(anteater int), which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do > but which is now forbidden because someone MIGHT have called the > function as foo(a := 3), and I certainly don't want to make it any > worse. Whether there are actually any stored queries that call the > function this way (or at all) is doesn't matter: it's not allowed. So > for a marginal notational convenience we have created dependency hell, > where you must drop and recreate every dependent object to perform a > trivial renaming. I think this is really quite horrible and would > have argued against accepting this patch at the time if I'd realized > what effect it was going to have. > yes, named parameters for functions created a new dependency. But this isn't possible for procedures. You can not to use a procedure inside view. So new dependency are not possible there. This important on procedures - it is little bit more outer from database. Pavel > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise Postgres Company >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: