> By the way, contrary to other other advice, you don't use SUSPEND in a
> procedure that returns only a one-row set. SUSPEND doesn't do anything,
> other than perform an EXIT, under any conditions except when you are
> processing a cursor (i.e. operating a FOR SELECT loop). You can (and
> probably should) invoke it with EXECUTE and read the output parameters.
>
> It would help if you would say what environment you are testing it in.
>
> heLen

Helen,
I apologize for giving incorrect info, if I did so. I _did_ test Marcus'
proc
with and without SUSPEND before I responded, to be sure that I was telling
him right.
Without suspend, all you get is NULL, even if you explicitly set the return
value, as
he mentioned.

I have seen somewhere a reference to not needing suspend, as you point out,
but in my experience I have
always had to add it to make a select proc work (keep in mind that my
"experience"
is limited compared to that of yourself and others on this list). I just
assumed
that the design had changed and the documentation had fallen out of sync.

As Marcus asked, is this a bug, feature or both? And if not, is there a
difference
in the stored proc syntax that makes it need/not need the SUSPEND?

In the meantime, we have to do what works...

Thanks for keeping us all straight,
Brian