Re: plpgsql.consistent_into

On 1/15/14, 12:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
>> Do we actually support = right now? We already support
>> v_field := field FROM table ... ;
>> and I think it's a bad idea to have different meaning for = and :=.
>
> That ship sailed a *very* long time ago. See other thread about
> documenting rather than ignoring this more-or-less-aboriginal
> behavior of plpgsql.

Yeah, I had no idea that was even supported...

>> I have no idea if this is related or not, but I would REALLY like for this to work (doesn't in 8.4, AFAIK not in 9.1 either...)
>
> Hm ... too tired to be sure, but I think the issue about inlining a
> function of this kind has to do with whether you get the same answers
> in corner cases such as subselect fetching no rows.

There was some discussion about this a few years ago and I think that was essentially the issue.

What I think would work is essentially a macro that would dump the function definition right into the query and then let the planner deal with it. So

SELECT blah, ( SELECT status_code FROM status_code WHERE status_code_id = blah_status_code_id ) FROM blah;

can become simply

SELECT blah, status_code__get_text( blah_status_code_id ) FROM blah;

but have it translate to the same raw SQL, same as views.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net