Re: Proposal - Continue stmt for PL/pgSQL

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal - Continue stmt for PL/pgSQL
Date: 2005-06-16 17:47:16
Message-ID: 42B1BB24.9030701@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule wrote:

>
>What do you think about it? It's broke PL/SQL compatibility, I know, but
>via last discussion I have opinion so Oracle compatibility isn't main
>objective PL/pgSQL. There is some less/bigger diferencess: SQLSTATE,
>EXCEPTION from my last proposal, atd.
>
>
>
>

Well, yes, but I don't think we should break compatibility
arbitrarilly. I guess it could be argued that this is a missing feature
in PL/SQL and its Ada parent - implementing GOTO just to handle this
case seems unnecessary.

I agree with Tom that it should only be allowed inside a loop.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2005-06-16 18:42:13 Re: Autovacuum in the backend
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-06-16 17:41:38 Re: Autovacuum in the backend