| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Prentice <prentice(at)cisco(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) |
| Date: | 2009-07-31 04:59:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1249016350.4765.3073.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 21:45 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > For instance, what would it mean if y
> > SELECT foo(a) FROM mytable;
> >
> > Where foo() mutated it's IN argument? Would that really be an UPDATE?
> >
> No, surely the mutated value will only be visible within the scope of
> the function, i.e. it will be a purely local copy that gets altered.
Oh, I misunderstood the example here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/msg01931.php
I thought he was saying that the PERFORM in test1() _should_ have
mutated "a", when in fact, he was trying to demonstrate that it does not
(with his patch or without).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-07-31 06:01:09 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |
| Previous Message | James Pye | 2009-07-31 03:13:28 | Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string |