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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-07-04 15:08:37 | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-04 14:28:47 | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |