Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 18:10:52 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robin Abbi <robin.abbi@downley.net>
Cc: Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks>,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Procedures
Message-ID: <20200806221052.GA23547@momjian.us>
References: <159653722937.654.5519018237996991238@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20200806001758.GA29874@momjian.us>
 <CADK3HH+cyx-aFnf8Tzra2qtBwD+e-k-cpnrjXhX9G9_-MKJj4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGmg_NX327KKVuJmbWZD=pGutYFxzZjX1rU+3ji8UuX=8ONn9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGmg_NX327KKVuJmbWZD=pGutYFxzZjX1rU+3ji8UuX=8ONn9Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug  6, 2020 at 02:30:55PM +0100, Robin Abbi wrote:
> PostgreSQL went as far as release 10 without procedures.
> Some third party resources written before 11 loosely conflate procedures with
> functions.
> Some third party resources written before 11 accurately state PostgreSQL has
> functions but not procedures.
> Referring to the PostgreSQL docs for 11 on, procedures have been added.
> 
> For someone like me, coming to the subject without much of a hinterland other
> than googling around, it seemed clear that there was a motivating case that
> caused Procedures to be added to PostgreSQL, but I was not sufficiently
> familiar with the domain to be able to readily intuit what it might have been.
> 
> For example, Procedures say they have no return value, yet Functions can return
> void. Not the same I agree, but I wouldn't be aware in which circumstances it
> mattered.
> 
> For me, perhaps the most useful thing would have been a small example
> highlighting the essential thing(s) that procedures can do that functions could
> not.

Agreed, this doc area needs help.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee