From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "2903807914(at)qq(dot)com" <2903807914(at)qq(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Support plpgsql multi-range in conditional control |
Date: | 2023-01-19 16:17:24 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBKxS0LQePGT5n-5RK3A0eMAqFMimHMgDdSU4HdP8Ufqw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
čt 19. 1. 2023 v 16:54 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:
>
>
> čt 19. 1. 2023 v 15:20 odesílatel 2903807914(at)qq(dot)com <2903807914(at)qq(dot)com>
> napsal:
>
>> Hello, thank you very much for your reply. But I think you may have
>> misunderstood what we have done.
>>
>> What we do this time is that we can use multiple range ranges
>> (condition_iterator) after in. Previously, we can only use such an interval
>> [lower, upper] after in, but in some scenarios, we may need a list: *condition_
>> iterator[,condition_iterator ...]*
>>
>> condition_iterator:
>> [ REVERSE ] expression .. expression [ BY expression ]
>>
>
> then you can use second outer for over an array or just while cycle
>
I wrote simple example:
create type range_expr as (r int4range, s int);
do
$$
declare re range_expr;
begin
foreach re in array ARRAY[('[10, 20]', 1), ('[100, 200]', 10)]
loop
for i in lower(re.r) .. upper(re.r) by re.s
loop
raise notice '%', i;
end loop;
end loop;
end;
$$;
But just I don't know what is wrong on
begin
for i in 10..20
loop
raise notice '%', i;
end loop;
for i in 100 .. 200 by 10
loop
raise notice '%', i;
end loop;
end;
and if there are some longer bodies you should use function or procedure.
Any different cycle is separated. PLpgSQL (like PL/SQL or ADA) are verbose
languages. There is no goal to have short, heavy code.
Regards
Pavel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2023-01-19 16:30:21 | Re: Remove source code display from \df+? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-19 16:13:30 | Re: Rethinking the implementation of ts_headline() |