| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(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 17:51:10 |
| Message-ID: | 5217A10E.5060807@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel,
> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or MySQL
> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
Currently, PL/pgSQL requires RETURN ____ in order to return a query
result to the caller. Is there some reason we'd change that?
If you're implementing TSQL-for-PostgreSQL, of course you might want to
have different behavior with SELECT. However, TSQL is not PL/pgSQL.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fábio Telles Rodriguez | 2013-08-23 18:10:26 | Re: Performance problem in PLPgSQL |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-08-23 17:30:05 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |