| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
| Date: | 2010-09-28 20:19:32 |
| Message-ID: | 28182.1285705172@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:
> 2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> But I guess you could get around that if you had to by putting the ARRAY
>> expression inside parens, and it would be a pretty darn unusual case
>> anyway. So this is probably the best choice.
> I don't agree - There isn't reason for complicating proposed syntax.
Yes, there is. The syntax you propose is flat out ambiguous: there are
two possible legal interpretations of some commands. That's not
acceptable, especially not when it's so easily fixed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-28 20:24:30 | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
| Previous Message | Massa, Harald Armin | 2010-09-28 20:02:39 | Re: documentation udpates to pgupgrade.html |