From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matt Miller <mattm(at)epx(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL: SELECT INTO EXACT |
Date: | 2005-08-08 21:18:53 |
Message-ID: | 9332.1123535933@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Matt Miller <mattm(at)epx(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 17:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dislike the choice of "EXACT", too, as it (a) adds a new reserved word
>> and (b) doesn't seem to convey quite what is happening anyway. Not sure
>> about a better word though ... anyone?
> I can attach a patch that supports [EXACT | NOEXACT].
Somehow, proposing two new reserved words instead of one doesn't seem
very responsive to my gripe :-(.
If you think that this should be a global option instead of a
per-statement one, something like the (undocumented) #option hack might
be a good way to specify it; that would give it per-function scope,
which seems reasonable.
create function myfn(...) returns ... as $$
#option select_into_1_row
declare ...
$$ language plpgsql;
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-08 21:38:02 | Re: Simplifying wal_sync_method |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-08-08 21:06:16 | Re: shrinking the postgresql.conf |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matt Miller | 2005-08-08 21:45:54 | Re: PL/pgSQL: SELECT INTO EXACT |
Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2005-08-08 21:01:09 | Re: PL/pgSQL: SELECT INTO EXACT |