Re: gset updated patch

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gset updated patch
Date: 2012-11-19 16:12:57
Message-ID: m2fw45sh9y.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Karl O. Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> writes:
> Yes. I'm wrong. For some reason I thought you could use DO to make
> an anonymous code block that would act as a SETOF function,
> allowing RETURN NEXT expr (et-al) to be used in the
> plpgsql code, allowing DO to return table results.
> (Or, perhaps, instead, be used in place of a table in a SELECT
> statement.) Oh well.

My key for remembering about that point is that DO is a utility command,
not a query. Now, the proposal I pushed last time we opened that very
can of worms was to have inline functions rather than anonymous code
blocks:

WITH FUNCTION foo(integer) returns bigint language SQL AS $$
SELECT $1 + 1;
$$,

Not sure how much that relates to $topic, but still something that
raises in my mind with enough presence that I need to write about it so
that it stops calling for attention :)

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-11-19 16:25:23 Re: Dumping an Extension's Script
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-11-19 16:04:31 Re: [RFC] Fix div/mul crash and more undefined behavior