| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Date: | 2013-08-23 20:08:33 |
| Message-ID: | 5217C141.20802@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/23/2013 01:06 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
>> of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
>> PL/pgSQL.
>
> How would using the same syntax to do an entirely different thing be
> consistent?
Currently the only way to return query results to the caller is to use
some form of RETURN. It is 100% consistent.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 20:51:35 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-08-23 20:06:44 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |