| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Date: | 2013-08-23 20:02:24 |
| Message-ID: | 5217BFD0.7030304@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/23/2013 11:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2013/8/23 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
>
>> Pavel,
>>
>>> But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or
>> MySQL
>>> a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side.
>>
>> Are you planning to implement that in PL/pgSQL?
>>
>>
> yes. I would to see a stored procedures with this functionality in pg
Is there some reason we wouldn't use RETURN QUERY in that case, instead
of SELECT? As I said above, it would be more consistent with existing
PL/pgSQL.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2013-08-23 20:06:44 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-08-23 19:54:34 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |