Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE

2013/8/29 David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>

> On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> You have yet to supply any arguments which support this position.
> >
> > I am not convinced that's enough of a reason, but the requirement to use
> > PERFORM for SELECTs that aren't stored anywhere actually has prevented
> > bugs for me. I am not convinced that's worth the cost since I also have
> > been annoyed by it several times, but it's not as crystal clear as you
> > paint it.
>
> So now we can revise Josh’s assertion to: “I have seen only tepid,
> unconvincing arguments which support this position.”
>
> I have thought that PERFORM was useful to mark queries that discard
> results in the past, but I think now that the mental load is higher, even
> if it can be fixed with CTEs, it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
>

when we fix a correct call of VOID function, then half of problem goes out.
Second half is subjective.

I remember, some years ago there was a proposal to change syntax and remove
all verbosity features from PL/pgSQL - for example - using only END instead
END IF, END LOOP, ...

For me, this talk is similar - we have a language, that was designed be
secure and verbose, what means, so developer must to write some chars more.
You cannot to have both - short language and secure.

Regards

Pavel

>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>