From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Date: | 2010-11-18 00:08:58 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikWAJ0mie2sHSxLBYkx7u21=X1cj9wb1zXe6zyr@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> this patch implement a new iteration construct - iteration over an
> array. The sense of this new iteration is:
> * a simple and cleaner syntax
i will start the review of this one... but before that sorry for
suggesting this a bit later but about using UNNEST as part of the
sintax?
FOR var IN UNNEST array_expr LOOP
END LOOP
i like this because:
1) is cleaner when array_expr is ARRAY[1,2,3]
2) is not legal now to use the unnest() function without a SELECT in
the context of a FOR loop (or am i missing something?)
3) the unnest() function does the same so seems intuitive what a
FOR-IN-UNNEST do
what i don't know if is this syntax could co-exist with the unnest() function?
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2010-11-18 01:09:33 | Re: CommitFest 2010-11: Call for Reviewers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-17 23:52:47 | Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums |