| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Kalyanov Dmitry <kalyanov(dot)dmitry(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Anonymous code block with parameters |
| Date: | 2014-09-23 02:23:02 |
| Message-ID: | 5420D986.4050404@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/23/2014 07:20 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, to me, DO vs CREATE FUNCTION has nothing to do with passing
>> arguments and/or returning data. It has to do with lifespan; single
>> call of the function body only, use DO, otherwise, create a function.
>>
>
> Actually same thing happened with the DO implementation itself -
> creating anonymous/hidden temporary functions in the background was also
> considered but was decided it's not acceptable (for similar reason temp
> tables were rejected for WITH).
>
> So we decided at least twice already that this kind of solution is bad,
> I don't know of any change that would invalidate the reasons for
> deciding that way so I don't see why they would suddenly become
> acceptable...
All good points. I was wrong to suggest just going for TEMPORARY
FUNCTION before, there's clearly a useful place for DO with parameters.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-23 03:19:51 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-23 01:54:22 | Re: proposal (9.5) : psql unicode border line styles |