| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dane Foster <studdugie(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A question about PL/pgSQL DECLAREd variable behavior |
| Date: | 2015-10-23 16:05:59 |
| Message-ID: | 562A5AE7.8030507@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/22/15 8:52 PM, Dane Foster wrote:
> It just occurred to me that another option, for my specific example,
> would be to record/cache FOUND instead of testing the RECORD variable
> for its NULLness. Unless of course assigning FOUND to a variable is a
> pass-by-reference assignment, which in the actual code that I'm writing
> would be problematic because FOUND is set many times because there are
> at least 4 SQL commands that my function executes.
AFAIK, functions don't really do pass by reference, except for INOUT
parameters. In any case, FOUND is definitely reset when you do things
like SELECT INTO.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-10-23 16:24:50 | Re: A question about PL/pgSQL DECLAREd variable behavior |
| Previous Message | Day, David | 2015-10-23 15:23:21 | Re: strange connection problem. |