| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql |
| Date: | 2016-03-22 05:06:04 |
| Message-ID: | 22042.1458623164@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:
> I can live with SELECT fx(x). It is little bit dangerous, but this risk can
> be easy detected by plpgsql_check.
Dangerous how?
>> So, I'm -1 on not having any keyword at all. I have no objection
>> to Merlin's proposal though. I agree that PERFORM is starting to
>> look a bit silly, since it doesn't play with WITH for instance.
> Isn't time to fix PERFORM instead?
I do not think it can be fixed without embedding knowledge of PERFORM into
the core parser, which I doubt anybody would consider a good idea.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-22 05:16:34 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-03-22 04:57:42 | Re: Identifying a message in emit_log_hook. |