Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls
Date: 2004-09-16 14:34:29
Message-ID: 20890.1095345269@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 01:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway.

> I think these are two distinct issues.

I think Andrew has a point: why aren't they the same issue? It would
certainly be no harder to support
func( ... );
as a SQL statement than as something allowed only in plpgsql. I think
it'd be easier to make it work in the full bison grammar than with some
lookahead hack in plpgsql.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dennis Bjorklund 2004-09-16 14:43:29 Re: subtransaction assert failure
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2004-09-16 14:16:14 Re: PostgreSQL Core Committee Welcomes New Member