| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
| Date: | 2006-05-17 05:13:28 |
| Message-ID: | 15956.1147842808@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> (No, I'm not particularly in favor of the BY feature mentioned upthread,
>> either.)
> mmm... and why is that?
Essentially because it's not in the upstream language. Oracle could
come out with the same feature next week, only they use STEP or some
other syntax for it, and then we'd have a mess on our hands. If the
feature were sufficiently compelling use-wise then I'd be willing to
risk that, but it doesn't seem to me to be more than a marginal
notational improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-05-17 05:21:50 | Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted |
| Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2006-05-17 05:09:53 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |