| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Date: | 2013-08-23 00:18:57 |
| Message-ID: | 5216AA71.3080708@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> Jan might remember more about his thought process here, but I'm thinking
> that he copied the SELECT-must-have-INTO rule and then chose to invent
> a new statement for the case of wanting to discard the result. I think
> you could make an argument for that being good from an oversight-detection
> standpoint, but it's not a really strong argument. Particularly in view
> of the difficulty we'd have in supporting WITH ... PERFORM ... nicely,
> it doesn't seem unreasonable to just allow SELECT-without-INTO.
For my own part, I have to correct forgetting to substitute "PERORM" for
"SELECT" around 200 times each major PL/pgSQL project. So it would be
user-friendly for it to go away.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 03:42:31 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-22 23:35:32 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |