Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in
Date: 2011-01-29 13:09:33
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
> possibility for enhancing plpgsql in future.

I look forward to hearing from the silent majority on this then.

> the main issue was a maintainability of more complex FOR statement.

That would be a reason to not have this functionality at all, not a
reason to add confusion with a new top-level command.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-01-29 13:13:04 Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2011-01-29 13:05:27 Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in