From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Date: | 2010-11-24 18:07:03 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin8YoExML_98e0UHHArxrVjksXyA-s_eVX92GP0@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Right, that was my impression, too. But, I think this may be partly a
>> case of people talking past each other. My impression of this
>> conversation was a repetition of this sequence:
>
>> A: This syntax is bad.
>> B: But it's way faster!
>
>> ...which makes no sense. However, what I now think is going on here
>> is that there are really two separate things that are wished for here
>> - a more compact syntax, and a performance improvement. And taken
>> separately, I agree with both of those desires. PL/pgsql is an
>> incredibly clunky language syntactically, and it's also slow. A patch
>> that improves either one of those things has value, whether or not it
>> also does the other one.
>
> I understand the desire for nicer syntax, in the abstract. I'm just
> unimpressed by this particular change, mainly because I'm afraid that
> it will make syntax-error behaviors worse and foreclose future options
> for other changes to FOR. If it were necessary to change the syntax
> to get the performance benefit, I might think that on balance we should
> do so; but it isn't.
It'd be nicer syntax if there were some way to have the keyword not
adjacent to the arbitrary expression.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-11-24 18:16:20 | Re: 8.4-vintage problem in postmaster.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-24 18:06:58 | Re: profiling connection overhead |