Re: fori stmt with by keyword was:(Re: [HACKERS] for statement,

I went to test this patch and got the attached regression failures.
Please repair and resubmit. Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On 4/30/06, Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 4/29/06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>there is a chance to add a STEP clause to the FOR statement in plpgsql?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >This is not free: it'd require making STEP a reserved word (at least
> > > >within plpgsql) which is contrary to spec. I think you need to make
> > > >a pretty good case why the value of the feature outweighs breaking
> > > >applications that have perfectly-legally used "step" as an identifier.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This isn't available in PL/SQL, is it? That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, of course, but it might lessen any perceived imperative.
> > >
> > > Maybe using BY instad of STEP as the keyword would make it easier, since its occurrence in SQL makes it less likely to be used as a variable.
> > >
> > > cheers
> > >
> > > andrew
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > i make a little patch using BY instead of STEP per Tom's complaint and
> > Andrew's suggestion.
> >
>
> the patch is ready, at least it seems to me... also i have added some
> lines to the docs...
>
> let me know what your decision is about this...
>
> --
> regards,
> Jaime Casanova
>
> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
> build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
> to produce bigger and better idiots.
> So far, the universe is winning."
> Richard Cook

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +