| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: I must be blind... |
| Date: | 2002-06-14 22:25:53 |
| Message-ID: | 9540.1024093553@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> However, because PERFORM discards the results of a query it is only
> useful for side effects of the query. My usage of it was wrong since I
> wasn't using it for side effects merely for determining the existance
> of a result without having to store that result since it wasn't
> required. Therefore, with the correct syntax of PERFORM <query> my
> function doesn't generate an 'unprogrammed' error but the test of
> FOUND always fails, i.e. result is NOT FOUND. Therefore SELECT INTO
> dummy ... is still the correct thing for me to be doing.
Okay. I guess the next question is whether PERFORM *should* be setting
FOUND. Seems like it might be a reasonable thing to do.
Does PERFORM exist in Oracle's plsql? If so, what does it do?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tony Carter | 2002-06-14 22:31:40 | Re: large database on postgres |
| Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-06-14 22:22:35 | Re: I must be blind... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-06-14 23:07:56 | Re: Making serial survive pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-06-14 22:22:35 | Re: I must be blind... |