| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Steve Prentice <prentice(at)cisco(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
| Date: | 2009-09-16 12:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | 5173F567-0B5D-4B6A-90A0-3242B070486D@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>> At 2009-07-30 13:37:16 -0700, prentice(at)cisco(dot)com wrote:
>>
>>> This patch changes plpgsql IN parameters so they are mutable.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense, applies fine, works fine.
>>
>>
>>
>
> How does this compare with PLSQL? I know in Ada an IN argument is in
> effect a constant. I understand the utility, because I occasionally
> knock against this restriction, but if it's incompatible with PLSQL
> I think we should think about it more carefully.
At worst it's an upward-compatible extension, or am I wrong? If it's
useful, which I think it is, what's the harm?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-09-16 13:03:27 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
| Previous Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2009-09-16 12:46:59 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |