Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE
Date: 2013-08-20 13:05:33
Message-ID: CAFj8pRATCj1v9VFU3baN8p26A_cpj9=vKEjNMem8Tzkn6LqEbQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2013/8/20 David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>

> On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I am passing the values returned from a CTE to a call to pg_notify(). I
> do not care to collect the output of pg_notify(), which returns VOID.
> >
> > it is little bit different issue - PL/pgSQL doesn't check if returned
> type is VOID - it can be allowed, I am thinking. So check of empty result
> can be enhanced.
>
> I am confused. I do not need to check the result (except via FOUND). But I
> am sure I can think of other situations where I am calling something where
> I do not care about the result, even if it returns one.
>

When you would to ignore result, then you should to use a PERFORM -
actually, it is limited now and should be fixed. Have no problem with it.

I don't would to enable a free unbound statement that returns result.

Regards

Pavel

>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2013-08-20 13:08:08 Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review])
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2013-08-20 13:01:10 Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE