From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL support to define multi variables once |
Date: | 2014-06-17 16:21:47 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYmwqxE9FuGXx2+QZ+3s2_KwqVK_z4-95HxTPjycsw0UQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> That's not the reading I want, and it's not the reading you want either,
>> but there is nothing in the existing text that justifies single
>> evaluation. So I think we'd be well advised to sit on our hands until
>> the committee clarifies that. It's not like there is some urgent reason
>> to have this feature.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I don't suppose there is any support or prohibition on the :
>
> one,two,three integer := generate_series(1,3);
>
> interpretation...not that I can actually come up with a good use case that
> wouldn't be better implemented via a loop in the main body.
Based on these comments and the remarks by Alvaro and Andres, I think
it's clear that we should reject this patch. The number of patches
that get through with -1 votes from 3 committers is very small, if not
zero. While I like the feature in the abstract, I agree with Tom that
it would be better to wait until we have more clarity about what the
semantics are supposed to be.
I will update the CommitFest app accordingly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-17 16:28:46 | Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-17 16:21:35 | Re: Memory deallocation after calling cast function |