| 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)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 19:18:15 |
| Message-ID: | 3948.1292613495@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:
> Second semi argument for using ARRAY keyword is a verbosity of
> PL/pgSQL. So from this perspective a ARRAY should be minimally
> optional and ensure, so expr result will be really a array. But with a
> optional ARRAY keyword we leaving a simple enhancing in future (on
> parser level).
No. If we are going to put a keyword there, it can't be optional.
Making it optional would require it to be a fully reserved word
--- and in the case of ARRAY, even that isn't good enough, because
of the conflict with ARRAY[...] syntax.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-17 19:19:11 | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 19:15:15 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |