| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(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 19:17:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCzakv4A7-YzO4aSs9+8hZHpkdo+oU6T6MZxLQMmVeW-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/8/23 David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
> 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.
>
>
ook
Regards
Pavel
> Best,
>
> David
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-08-23 19:54:34 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2013-08-23 19:01:11 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |