Re: doc: update PL/pgSQL sample loop function

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: doc: update PL/pgSQL sample loop function
Date: 2019-09-01 03:39:24
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KoDtz4bsNLZsTP-LpJ6LZ1kHoHosTuA2veK+UQBNKBWQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:07 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> čt 29. 8. 2019 v 5:03 odesílatel Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> napsal:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Here:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-control-structures.html#PLPGSQL-RECORDS-ITERATING
>>
>> we have a sample PL/PgSQL function (dating from at least 7.2) demonstrating
>> query result loops, which refreshes some pseudo materialized views stored in
>> a user-defined table.
>>
>> As we've had proper materialized views since 9.3, I thought it might
>> be nice to update this with a self-contained sample which can be used
>> as-is; see attached patch.
>>
>> (As a side note the current sample function contains a couple of "%s"
>> placeholders which should be just "%"; a quick search of plpgsql.sgml
>> shows this is the only place they occur).
>>
>> Will submit to the next commitfest.
>
> +1
>

The current example shows the usage of looping in plpgsql, so as such
there is no correctness issue, but OTOH there is no harm in updating
the example as proposed by Ian Barwick. Does anyone else see any
problem with this idea? If we agree to proceed with this update, it
might be better to backpatch it for the sake of consistency though I
am not sure about that.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2019-09-01 05:04:27 Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2019-09-01 02:51:18 Re: [DOC] Document auto vacuum interruption