| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
| Date: | 2010-09-28 20:41:19 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=FqC_YkJny1e2=Mxm9PZjDGjC_U3T6VjQeb0Jo@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> Yes, there is. The syntax you propose is flat out ambiguous: there are
>>> two possible legal interpretations of some commands.
>
>> what are you thinking? The subquery cannot be interpreted different.
>
> Sure it can: it could be a parenthesized top-level query. In fact,
> that's what plpgsql will assume if you feed it that syntax today.
no - there are not any legal construct FOR r IN (..)
I believe so we can find more than one similar undocumented features,
like this - so it means so plpgsql will be a buggy?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-28 20:49:29 | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-28 20:39:19 | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |