| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |
| Date: | 2010-07-04 15:50:11 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinibSYI3yPkhVr7gc6G-LICWeu8Rl4gS2L-tzHg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/7/4 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>
>
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, we intentionally didn't put any provision for parameters into DO
>>> originally. What's changed to alter that decision?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It just concept - nothing more. And my instinct speak so inline code
>> block without external parametrization is useless.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You have said this before, IIRC, but frankly your instinct is just wrong. It
> is no more useless than are parameter-less functions, and I use those
> frequently. I used a DO block for some useful testing just the other day.
>
> This whole proposal strikes me as premature. What we need is some experience
> from the field in using DO before we can sensibly decide how it should be
> extended. And we won't get that until 9.0 has been released and used for a
> while.
>
just we have different opinion
Regards
Pavel
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-04 16:22:32 | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-07-04 15:38:47 | Re: proof concept: do statement parametrization |