Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in
Date: 2011-01-29 19:08:07
Message-ID: AANLkTi=Dxvp2z77UbCk8YF7EV1Fu0dF6c731XJcWTxCV@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2011/1/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> See also
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
>> which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
>> FOREACH does.
>
> Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post previously.  I think I
> can get behind the idea of FOREACH being used for 'vertical'
> (multi-value in a single value) loops while FOR is used for 'horizontal'
> (multi-row).  This patch certainly needs to be improved to document
> this, in the grammar, in the code via comments, and in the actual
> documentation.  It also needs to touch any place that talks about the
> other kinds of loops to be sure that FOREACH is included and that it's
> behavior is documented accordingly.

Stephen, please, update documentation freely. Current documentation is
really minimal.

Regards

Pavel

>
>        Thanks again,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk1EZJEACgkQrzgMPqB3kijrawCfbvtV/2QoJ6nLvKZENcslQgz+
> do8An2Q7MvgubhLqrfbVCMiG29+RG3cp
> =RpHJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2011-01-29 19:09:11 Re: Snapshots no longer build
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2011-01-29 19:05:22 Re: WIP: RangeTypes