From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Steve Prentice <prentice(at)cisco(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
Date: | 2009-09-16 15:49:45 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150909160849y678f5a79w76520d9053f1b20a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
>>>
>>> At 2009-07-30 13:37:16 -0700, prentice(at)cisco(dot)com wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patch changes plpgsql IN parameters so they are mutable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Makes sense, applies fine, works fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How does this compare with PLSQL? I know in Ada an IN argument is in
>> effect a constant. I understand the utility, because I occasionally knock
>> against this restriction, but if it's incompatible with PLSQL I think we
>> should think about it more carefully.
>
> At worst it's an upward-compatible extension, or am I wrong? If it's
> useful, which I think it is, what's the harm?
are we guarding against cases like:
select _foo, adjust_foo(_foo) from bar; -- adjust_foo is inout
??
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Prentice | 2009-09-16 16:19:25 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-09-16 15:36:22 | Re: Linux LSB init script |