| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
| Date: | 2010-09-28 21:03:27 |
| Message-ID: | 28950.1285707807@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Sure it can: it could be a parenthesized top-level query. In fact,
>> that's what plpgsql will assume if you feed it that syntax today.
> no - there are not any legal construct FOR r IN (..)
You are simply wrong, sir, and I suggest that you go read the SQL
standard until you realize that. Consider for example
for r in (SELECT ... FROM a UNION SELECT ... FROM b) INTERSECT (SELECT ... FROM c) LOOP ...
The parentheses here are not merely legal, they are *necessary*, else
the semantics of the UNION/INTERSECT operations change.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergey Burladyan | 2010-09-28 21:35:00 | UTF8 regexp and char classes still does not work |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-09-28 21:03:15 | Commitfest: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly |