| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:06:44 |
| Message-ID: | 5217C0D4.2000609@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-08-23 22:02, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2013/8/23 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>> yes. I would to see a stored procedures with this functionality in pg
>
> Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
> of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
> PL/pgSQL.
How would using the same syntax to do an entirely different thing be
consistent?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-08-23 20:08:33 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-08-23 20:02:24 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |