* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
> possibility for enhancing plpgsql in future.

I look forward to hearing from the silent majority on this then.

> the main issue was a maintainability of more complex FOR statement.

That would be a reason to not have this functionality at all, not a
reason to add confusion with a new top-level command.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

• Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in at 2011-01-29 13:05:27 from Pavel Stehule

Responses

• Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in at 2011-01-29 18:24:16 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-01-29 13:13:04
	Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Previous:	From: Pavel Stehule	Date: 2011-01-29 13:05:27
	Subject: Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in