| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-29 13:13:04 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-01-29 13:05:27 | Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in |