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

Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 14:43:54
Message-ID: AANLkTilMWYSFZVwOfeU3I9EYM71f_NkKaxNpEy9cDTU2@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/7/4 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 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
>

It just concept - nothing more. And my instinct speak so inline code
block without external parametrization is useless.

Regards

Pavel Stehule

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-07-04 15:08:37
Subject: Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-07-04 14:28:47
Subject: Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization

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