| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-04 12:28:59 |
| Message-ID: | 54085B0B.9020408@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/4/14 2:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> for example best practices for PL/SQL by Steven Feuerstein
I'll spend some time with that book to have a better idea on where
you're coming from.
Also, *please* don't try and extrapolate what I do based on the code
examples on the wiki page; they're all crap just to point out the issues.
> We can talk about it - it subjective and I know so there are not only one
> style.
>
> The language has these possibilities. Why to add new redundant?
Adding a new alias for every single OUT parameter for every single
function seems like a waste of time. It also doesn't improve
readability in the way that OUT.foo := 1; does (though I guess you
could add an "out_" prefix to all of them).
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-04 12:37:08 | Re: Join push-down support for foreign tables |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-04 12:19:47 | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |