Re: DO ... RETURNING

Pavel,

* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> 2013/6/10 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> > What are the different concepts..? We already have set returning
> > functions, why would set returning anonymous functions be any different?
>
> 1. DO as function
> 2. DO as batch

We already have set returning functions.

> >> Still I don't like this idea, because you should to support DO
> >> RETURNING in other statements - like INSERT INTO DO RETURNING ???
> >
> > That would certainly be neat, but it doesn't have to be there in the
> > first incarnation, or really, ever, if it turns out to be painful to do.
> >
>
> this is reason, why I dislike it - It is introduce significant strange
> SQL extension

DO already exists and isn't in the SQL standard. This isn't a
significant diversion from that, imv.

> > You can already create temporary functions by simply creating them in
> > pg_temp. I'd like to see us add explicit support for them though, but I
> > don't see this as related to the DO-RETURNING question.
>
> I don't think we have to introduce a new NON ANSI concept, when is
> possible using current feature.

DO already exists and would cover certain cases that temproary functions
don't today.

Thanks,

Stephen