From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: plpgsql FOR loop doesn't guard against strange step values |
Date: | 2007-07-14 21:23:48 |
Message-ID: | 22590.1184448228@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just noticed that when the BY option was added to plpgsql FOR
>> loops, no real error checking was done. If you specify a zero step
>> value, you'll have an infinite loop. If you specify a negative
>> value, the loop variable will increment in the "wrong direction"
>> until integer overflow occurs. Neither of these behaviors seem
>> desirable in the least.
> That seems to be fairly normal proramming language behavior.
Well, it's about what I'd expect from C or something at a similar level
of (non) abstraction. But I dislike the idea that plpgsql should have
behavior as machine-dependent as that the number of iterations will
depend on the value of INT_MIN. Also, at the SQL level our usual policy
is to throw errors for obvious programmer mistakes, and it's hard to
argue that a zero or negative step isn't a programmer mistake. Had we
defined the stepping behavior differently (ie, make "BY -1" work like
REVERSE) then there would be some sanity in allowing negative steps,
but I don't see the sanity in it given the implemented behavior.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-07-14 21:44:32 | Re: plpgsql and qualified variable names |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-14 21:13:26 | plpgsql and qualified variable names |