| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |
| Date: | 2010-07-04 13:58:04 |
| Message-ID: | 3398.1278251884@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> my syntax is reflecting fact, so these are not true parameters - it's
> +/- similar to default values of function parameters.
FWIW, that doesn't seem like a positive to me.
> You cannot to
> write do (a int := $1) $$ ... $$ - because utils statements hasn't
> have variables.
Yet. I don't particularly want to relax that either, but the syntax of
this feature shouldn't assume it'll be true forever.
I think it's better to not confuse these things with default parameters,
so Florian's idea looks better to me.
BTW, we intentionally didn't put any provision for parameters into DO
originally. What's changed to alter that decision?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-04 14:28:47 | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-04 13:48:38 | Re: pessimal trivial-update performance |