From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
Date: | 2013-08-27 20:29:14 |
Message-ID: | 22183.1377635354@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2013/8/27 David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
>> But whatever the keyword, I think it makes sense to require one to return
>> results to the caller. Any query that does not return, yield, or capture
>> (select into) values should just have its results discarded.
> A usual and first solution and syntax is defined by Sybase - we can define
> own syntax, but I don't think so it is necessary be original everywhere.
> My opinion is surely subjective - this feature is one from few features
> that are nice on T-SQL.
We aren't following T-SQL on any other syntax detail, so why would we
start with this one? plpgsql is meant to follow Oracle syntax not T-SQL.
I agree with David that we should use some new syntax to specify
return-results-directly-to-client, assuming we ever get any such
functionality. It seems like a pretty bad choice of default behavior,
which is essentially what you're saying it should be.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2013-08-27 20:31:27 | Re: pg_restore multiple --function options |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-27 20:21:42 | Re: pg_restore multiple --function options |