From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
Date: | 2010-12-17 15:53:42 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimYbcYA7=FLDu4zwmhTRVGM+oo_=nHqo95=FQ+X@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I am resending a redesigned proposal about special plpgsql statement
>> that support iteration over an array.
>
> OK ...
>
>> == Iteration over multidimensional arrays ==
>> Its designed to reduce one dimension from source array. It can remove
>> a slicing and simplify code:
>
> This seems like a really bad, confusing idea. I think it should throw
> a type-mismatch error in this case. If there is any use-case for such a
> thing, which I'm quite unconvinced of, it ought to use a separate syntax
> rather than overloading the element-by-element syntax.
I don't agree at all -- iterating arrays by slice is a frequently
requested feature (you can kinda sorta do it by slice notation, but
arr[n] giving null is a -general FAQ. This is how people think arrays
should work. I suppose that having this functionality reserved in a
tiny corner of plpgsql is not so good, but I think foreach... would
become the preferred way to iterate arrays always.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-12-17 15:58:26 | Re: proposal: FOREACH-IN-ARRAY (probably for 9.2?) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-17 15:49:59 | Serializable lock consistency (was Re: CommitFest wrap-up) |