Re: Rethinking plpgsql's assignment implementation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking plpgsql's assignment implementation
Date: 2020-12-27 23:54:19
Message-ID: 1532199.1609113259@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Now, the behavior of SELECT INTO is behind the assign statement and this
> fact should be documented. Usually we don't need to use array's fields
> here, but somebody can try it.

It's been behind all along --- this patch didn't really change that.
But I don't mind documenting it more clearly.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-12-28 02:43:23 Re: pgsql: Add pg_alterckey utility to change the cluster key
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2020-12-27 23:08:59 Re: Rethinking plpgsql's assignment implementation