| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
| Date: | 2010-12-17 19:23:59 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikhf7siWj3Pk1rb3E_54fpnN-BFUnzcb7D1=OnK@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/12/17 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Second semi argument for using ARRAY keyword is a verbosity of
>> PL/pgSQL. So from this perspective a ARRAY should be minimally
>> optional and ensure, so expr result will be really a array. But with a
>> optional ARRAY keyword we leaving a simple enhancing in future (on
>> parser level).
>
> No. If we are going to put a keyword there, it can't be optional.
> Making it optional would require it to be a fully reserved word
> --- and in the case of ARRAY, even that isn't good enough, because
> of the conflict with ARRAY[...] syntax.
yes, it's true
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 19:25:17 | Re: ps_status on fastpath |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-17 19:22:35 | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |