* 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.
In response to
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|