| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Date: | 2013-08-29 21:44:47 |
| Message-ID: | 521FC0CF.10800@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/29/2013 11:01 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I cannot to say what is good design for PL/pgSQL - only I feel so some variant of RETURN statement is not good, because semantic is significantly different. And I see a increasing inconsistency between a original ADA and PL/pgSQL.
> So YIELD or implement PL/PSM.
We already have RETURN NEXT as equivalent to YIELD.
--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2013-08-29 21:45:21 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-29 21:41:01 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |