From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net" <w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Opening a plpgsql cursor parameter by name |
Date: | 2010-09-22 15:47:03 |
Message-ID: | 26238.1285170423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We intend to implement $subject, so instead of
> mycursor CURSOR (myparm text) IS SELECT myparm;
> OPEN mycursor('A');
> it would be possible to do
> OPEN mycursor(myparm := 'A');
Is this really worth the trouble? Is it supported by any other DBMS?
Are cursors used so much, or with so many parameters, that there's a
real benefit to be gained? (I tend to think that FOR loops are better
than cursors 99% of the time.)
I wouldn't be so obstructionist if this syntax weren't in flux.
But seeing that we have hopes of migrating from := to => before
very long, adding another dependency on that choice where it's
not buying a lot of functionality doesn't seem like a good idea.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-22 15:57:45 | Re: Standby registration |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-22 15:43:07 | Re: moving development branch activity to new git repo |