| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
| Date: | 2017-09-08 21:09:37 |
| Message-ID: | 31523.1504904977@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:
> personally I prefer syntax without FOR keyword - because following keyword
> must be reserved keyword
> SET x = .., y = .. SELECT ... ;
Nope. Most of the statement-starting keywords are *not* fully reserved;
they don't need to be as long as they lead off the statement. But this
proposal would break that. We need to put FOR or IN or another
already-fully-reserved keyword after the SET list, or something's going
to bite us.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-08 21:14:15 | Re: PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-08 21:00:18 | Re: tupconvert.c API change in v10 release notes |