| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kristo Kaiv <kristo(dot)kaiv(at)skype(dot)net>, Postgres-General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INSERT doc discrepancy |
| Date: | 2007-08-28 17:07:51 |
| Message-ID: | 29182.1188320871@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Kristo Kaiv wrote:
>> but it seems if i want to return the result into a record i have to use it
>> with INTO clause in the end:
> Ah, you are using it in plpgsql! OK, but the explanation to the
> discrepancy is that the second INTO is not part of the SQL sentence;
> it's plpgsql only, and is parsed by its internal parser, so not really
> part of the SQL grammar.
And, in fact, the plpgsql documentation does show this usage (section
38.5.3 in devel docs, but I think the numbering has changed since 8.2).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-28 17:19:32 | Re: Indexing Foreign Key Columns |
| Previous Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2007-08-28 17:06:48 | Re: Tables dissapearing |