Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>,Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in
Date: 2011-01-29 13:09:33
Message-ID: 20110129130933.GM30352@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* 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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group