| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: updated patch for foreach stmt |
| Date: | 2011-02-16 04:29:39 |
| Message-ID: | 7952.1297830579@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 02/15/2011 08:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Anyhoo, forcing the explicit ARRAY keyword in there seems like pretty
>> cheap future-proofing to me. YMMV.
> If this is the syntax that makes you do things like:
> FOREACH foo IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,3]
> I have to say I find that pretty darn ugly still.
Yeah, that was the argument against requiring ARRAY. So it comes down
to whether you think we need future-proofing here. I can't immediately
see any reason for us to need a keyword right there, but ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-02-16 04:45:19 | Re: updated patch for foreach stmt |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-02-16 04:00:35 | Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |