| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql |
| Date: | 2016-03-21 23:10:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zyc+X-5dCRjdoF41r46-F-Rbr=cHLcG4VjYdSe7pY55w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So, I'm -1 on not having any keyword at all. I have no objection
> to Merlin's proposal though. I agree that PERFORM is starting to
> look a bit silly, since it doesn't play with WITH for instance.
All right -- I'll submit a revised patch with documentation
adjustments. "Basic Statements" needs to be revised, in particular
the section, "Executing a Command With No Result". I'm inclined to
remove that section completely, and rename the next section from
"Executing a Query with a Single-row Result" to simply, "Executing a
Query" (or perhaps "Non-Dynamic Query").
I'd like to remove documentation and usage of PERFORM except for a
note mentioning the old syntax...this would replace the current note
that existentially questions the necessity of PERFORM in the first
place. Thanks.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-21 23:33:49 | Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-21 22:49:55 | Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql |