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

Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement
Date: 2010-09-28 20:41:19
Message-ID: AANLkTi=FqC_YkJny1e2=Mxm9PZjDGjC_U3T6VjQeb0Jo@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> Yes, there is.  The syntax you propose is flat out ambiguous: there are
>>> two possible legal interpretations of some commands.
>
>> what are you thinking? The subquery cannot be interpreted different.
>
> Sure it can: it could be a parenthesized top-level query.  In fact,
> that's what plpgsql will assume if you feed it that syntax today.

no - there are not any legal construct FOR r IN (..)

I believe so we can find more than one similar undocumented features,
like this - so it means so plpgsql will be a buggy?

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-09-28 20:49:29
Subject: Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-09-28 20:39:19
Subject: Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement

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