From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
Date: | 2010-09-29 04:27:33 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikV_avOiHNnsHtEv87ze-QDURuNXScA4eiM-Gex@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/9/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> Sure it can: it could be a parenthesized top-level query. In fact,
>>> that's what plpgsql will assume if you feed it that syntax today.
>
>> no - there are not any legal construct FOR r IN (..)
>
> You are simply wrong, sir, and I suggest that you go read the SQL
> standard until you realize that. Consider for example
>
> for r in (SELECT ... FROM a UNION SELECT ... FROM b) INTERSECT (SELECT ... FROM c) LOOP ...
>
> The parentheses here are not merely legal, they are *necessary*, else
> the semantics of the UNION/INTERSECT operations change.
>
ok, then probably one variant is for-in-array array_expr. Is there agreement?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-09-29 04:27:50 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2010-09-29 03:53:33 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |