From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matt <matt(at)kynx(dot)org> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: patch: plpgsql - access records with rec.(expr) |
Date: | 2004-11-23 15:33:50 |
Message-ID: | 26799.1101224030@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matt <matt(at)kynx(dot)org> writes:
> It would be a good idea to check that the variable was either a constant
> or a trigger arg. This would stop the looping problem, since the type of
> the underlying field couldn't change.
What about
for i in ...
... new.(tg_argv[i]) ...
> But I've somehow got the feeling that this sort of thing isn't the
> issue. The issue is whether we want to allow dynamic access to columns
> in any syntax at all. A simple yes or no would do :)
MHO: this is a really ugly wart on the language, and it does not solve
the problems people would want to solve. It might solve *your* problem
but that's not enough to justify a wart of this size.
We do need to do something about the fact that EXECUTE can't access
plpgsql variables, though I'm afraid that fixing that is going to
require a rather complete overhaul of plpgsql :-(. But it needs one
anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2004-11-23 15:59:18 | Re: Trouble with plpgsql on 7.4.6 |
Previous Message | Bort, Paul | 2004-11-23 15:31:04 | Re: [Testperf-general] Re: ExclusiveLock |