Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

On 08.06.21 01:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Hmm, these are atop HEAD from a week or so back.  The cfbot seems to
>> think they still apply.  In any case, I was about to spend some effort
>> on the docs, so I'll post an updated version soon (hopefully today).
> 
> Here is said update (rolled up into one patch this time; maybe that will
> avoid the apply problems you had).

This patch looks good to me.

A minor comment: You changed the docs in some places like this:

-   </itemizedlist></para>
+   </itemizedlist>
+  </para>

The original layout is required to avoid spurious whitespace in the 
output (mainly affecting man pages).

> I noticed that there is one other loose end in the patch: should
> LookupFuncName() really be passing OBJECT_ROUTINE to
> LookupFuncNameInternal()?  This matches its old behavior, in which
> no particular routine type restriction was applied; but I think that
> the callers are nearly all expecting that only plain functions will
> be returned.  That's more of a possible pre-existing bug than it
> is the fault of the patch, but nonetheless this might be a good
> time to resolve it.

It appears that all uses of LookupFuncName() are lookups of internal 
support functions (with one exception in pltcl), so using 
OBJECT_FUNCTION would be okay.

It might be good to keep the argument order of LookupFuncNameInternal() 
consistent with LookupFuncWithArgs() with respect to the new ObjectType 
argument.