Re: [HACKERS] plan invalidation vs stored procedures

2008/8/6 Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net>:
> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 16:17 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2008/8/5 Asko Oja <ascoja@gmail.com>:
>> > postgres=# create or replace function pavel ( i_param text, status OUT int,
>> > status_text OUT text ) returns record as $$ select 200::int, 'ok'::text; $$
>> > language sql;
>> > CREATE FUNCTION
>> > postgres=# create or replace function pavel ( i_param text, status OUT int,
>> > status_text OUT text, more_text OUT text ) returns record as $$ select
>> > 200::int, 'ok'::text, 'tom'::text; $$ language sql;
>> > ERROR: cannot change return type of existing function
>> > DETAIL: Row type defined by OUT parameters is different.
>> > HINT: Use DROP FUNCTION first.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Asko Oja <ascoja@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This is simply a bad, wrong, stupid way to do it. Why do you not use
>> >> > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION?
>> >> I totally agree we should get this fixed first :)
>> >>
>> >> postgres=# create or replace function pavel ( i_param text, status OUT
>> >> int, status_text OUT text ) returns record as $$ select 200::int,
>> >> 'ok'::text; $$ language sql;
>> >> ERROR: cannot change return type of existing function
>> >> HINT: Use DROP FUNCTION first.
>> >>
>>
>> you cannot change header of function. It's same as change C header of
>> function without complete recompilation.
>
> SQL is not C.
>
> You don't have to recompile the whole SQL database when you add columns
> to tables, so why should you need to do it, when you add a column to
> table-returning function ?
>

I thing, it's possible - but it's neccessary completly new dictionary
with dependencies (some dependencies are dynamic - polymorphic
functions) so it's dificult task.

Pavel

> --------------
> Hannu
>
>
>

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers