From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml |
Date: | 2003-11-25 16:54:03 |
Message-ID: | 1069779243.22025.240.camel@camel |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 11:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> > ! SELECT INTO users_rec * FROM users WHERE user_id=3;
> > --- 986,993 ----
> > ! SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id=3 INTO users_rec;
>
> Why do you want to change the example to disagree with the advice given
> just above?
>
> : At present, the INTO clause can appear almost anywhere in the SELECT
> : statement, but it is recommended to place it immediately after the
> : SELECT key word as depicted above. Future versions of PL/pgSQL may be
> : less forgiving about placement of the INTO clause.
>
> regards, tom lane
guess that was an unconscious change made on my part. I tend to use that
format for writing functions since I feel it is more clear to read.
Actually if I had my druthers I'd probably remove that "advice"
entirely, but either way that change can be disregarded, but removal of
the "full_name varchar" line should still be done.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-25 19:04:44 | Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-25 16:24:01 | Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml |