| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 18:20:28 |
| Message-ID: | 418ED21A-DCEC-4E93-A75C-F73236BCF04E@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, we did beat up Pavel over trying to shoehorn this facility into
> the existing FOR syntax, so I can hardly blame him for thinking this
> way. The question is whether we're willing to assume that FOREACH will
> be limited to iterating over arrays, meaning we'll be stuck with
> inventing yet another initial keyword if some other fundamentally
> different concept comes along. Right at the moment I can't think of
> any plausible candidates, but ...
FOREACH pair IN HSTORE…
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-17 18:35:51 | relaxing sync commit if no WAL written (was Re: unlogged tables) |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2010-12-17 17:58:45 | Re: proposal : cross-column stats |