| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2013-08-23 19:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | B5DC4E70-0503-492C-A6CC-E28B724335AF@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 23, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less verbose languages.
>
> I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice case, where I am think so PERFORM is good for verbosity.
I really do not see the point of PERFORM in the current implementation of PL/pgSQL. If we were to allow SELECT to run when it is not returning a value or selecting into a variable, it would be unambiguous, since the other two cases require:
* Using RETURN (or RETURN QUERY)
* The INTO clause
I have come around to the position that I think Tom, Josh, and Merlin have all put forward, that PERFORM is unnecessary.
Unless Jan chimes in with something the rest of us have missed, it’s starting to feel like a consensus to me, other than your objections, of course.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 19:17:23 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 18:51:32 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |