From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Anthony Bykov <a(dot)bykov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: issue: record or row variable cannot be part of multiple-item INTO list |
Date: | 2017-09-14 12:53:37 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBVL_NsH2DVt1z9sVzyznHAp2Nx9-yoGMCgRFP7t=2k5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
2017-09-14 12:33 GMT+02:00 Anthony Bykov <a(dot)bykov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation: tested, failed
>
> Hello,
> As far as I understand, this patch adds functionality (correct me if I'm
> wrong) for users. Shouldn't there be any changes in doc/src/sgml/ with the
> description of new functionality?
>
It removes undocumented limit. I recheck plpgsql documentation and there
are not any rows about prohibited combinations of data types.
There is line:
where command-string is an expression yielding a string (of type text)
containing the command to be executed. The optional target is a record
variable, a row variable, or a comma-separated list of simple variables and
record/row fields, into which the results of the command will be stored.
The optional USING expressions supply values to be inserted into the
command.
what is correct if I understand well with this patch.
Regards
Pavel
>
> Regards
> Anthony
>
> The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-09-14 13:17:50 | Re: psql: new help related to variables are not too readable |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-09-14 12:48:54 | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |