Re: Proposal: USING clause for DO statement

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Proposal: USING clause for DO statement
Date: 2009-11-21 15:48:59
Message-ID: 14791.1258818539@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/11/21 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>> One possible problem: what type would these anonymous params be?

> It is solved long time - without specification, any parameter is
> 'unknown text'.

Nonsense.

We do have the ability to infer parameter types when parsing a SQL
statement. That does not extend to any random PL being able to do it.
In fact, NONE of them can do it, not even plpgsql. They all expect
incoming parameter types to be predetermined.

Without types *and* names, there is no point in considering parameters.
And the problem with that, which is why we didn't put parameters into
DO in the first place, is that it raises the minimum notational bar
quite a lot. You might as well go ahead and define a temporary
function.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-11-21 15:52:14 Re: DEFAULT of domain ignored in plpgsql (8.4.1)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-11-21 15:41:02 Re: Proposal: USING clause for DO statement