Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE

2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>

> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > Currently, PL/pgSQL requires RETURN ____ in order to return a query
> > result to the caller. Is there some reason we'd change that?
> >
> > If you're implementing TSQL-for-PostgreSQL, of course you might want to
> > have different behavior with SELECT. However, TSQL is not PL/pgSQL.
>
> I don't think Pavel's point makes sense in the context of functions.
> With stored procedures it might though -- but I don't see why that we
> need to reserve behavior for SELECT without INTO -- it can behave
> differently when executed with a hypothetical CALL.
>

I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does one
in one context (functions) and does something else in second context
(procedures).

On second hand, I am thinking so requirement PERFORM is good. A query that
does some, but result is ignored, is strange (and it can be a performance
fault), so we should not be too friendly in this use case.

PERFORM must be fixed, but should be used.

Regards

Pavel

>
> merlin
>