From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>,
        "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Seeking Clarification on Function Definitions in PostgreSQL Extensions
In-reply-to: <CAKFQuwa430SdD+fD34_hzCczf9Fv3AKR4Mds_KxPuonaFs7emQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACX+KaPBaSW+0PyMC7dmY6W9W8mPSbWpkJRhAOQOC9Qb0TjCQA@mail.gmail.com> <CANzqJaA-Bmsq5npa1qCaQkDMb-4+9ZqZVUHqpVzURJ-RtSgS-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFQuwarhk+tg0iJVekT8FENSjhTBXhvVmbep6kWVrUzd1naaA@mail.gmail.com> <CANzqJaCWEJb8VXK=063GnE9VF71EAijXf_MCjHj48ooAyUw9bw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFQuwbBAks7=R0GDmSY91YGLp3_kt7nQ3_K_4u38GLz34NbLA@mail.gmail.com> <CANzqJaBy1Vwpo_fso+KKo_ubKaaA2etNkz-T5caCexQKQ5m9mg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFQuwa430SdD+fD34_hzCczf9Fv3AKR4Mds_KxPuonaFs7emQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:37:36 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4184541.1718741065.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:04:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4184542.1718741065@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4184542.1718741065%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What's the purpose?  Legacy of not having procedures?

> So people can have a style guide that says always specify a returns clause
> on function definitions.

To my mind, the reason we allow RETURNS together with OUT parameter(s)
is so there's a place to write SETOF if you want that.

Yes, the RETURNS TABLE syntax is somewhat redundant with RETURNS
SETOF.  Blame the SQL standard for that.

			regards, tom lane