2010/7/4 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> BTW, we intentionally didn't put any provision for parameters into DO
>>> originally. What's changed to alter that decision?
>> It just concept - nothing more. And my instinct speak so inline code
>> block without external parametrization is useless.
> You have said this before, IIRC, but frankly your instinct is just wrong. It
> is no more useless than are parameter-less functions, and I use those
> frequently. I used a DO block for some useful testing just the other day.
> This whole proposal strikes me as premature. What we need is some experience
> from the field in using DO before we can sensibly decide how it should be
> extended. And we won't get that until 9.0 has been released and used for a
just we have different opinion
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-04 16:22:32|
|Subject: Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-07-04 15:38:47|
|Subject: Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization|