On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:21 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > The omission of the "OUT" parameter mode seems intentional since at > present > > our procedures do not support OUT mode parameters. > > Um, I just created one. I think this *used* to be true, and this bit of > the docs didn't get fixed. If I back-patch this, I'll have to research > when it changed. >
Five months ago it seems. https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/2453ea142233ae57af452019c3b9a443dad1cdd0 The patch and email thread for that commit make me pause, though I cannot put into words why. > > > Instead of "The difference" or "One difference" I would suggest: > "However, > > a procedure does not return a value, so there is no return type > > declaration; though a procedure can declare INOUT (but not plain OUT) > > parameters." > > Not sure if that's an improvement. > The "however" part is probably a wash; I just dislike seeing a count started and not having an ending and thus being left in a state of "what didn't they include that's important". The part about commenting about OUT/INOUT parameters still working even though there is no return provide complete coverage of the differences/similarities between functions and procedures with respect to passing back data to the caller. > > > Relocating the links to the description instead of usage is good. The > > additional procedure link after the examples seems redundant, > particularly > > as the linked to location doesn't actually have more examples. > > I was modeling that on the existing pattern in create_function.sgml, > which has similar verbiage in the EXAMPLES section. But I suppose > we could drop that if we have a link in the description section. > > Yeah, it was an existing deficiency, but being a bit more invasive seems warranted, and as you say it is be located partly because it is much higher level content being pointed to (hence description, not usage/examples). David J.
