From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org |
Cc: | andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: proposal for 8.3: Simultaneous assignment for PL/pgSQL |
Date: | 2006-08-07 17:32:37 |
Message-ID: | BAY20-F2301F636CDDADE6DF46DABF9570@phx.gbl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > Well, you can implement it. After all, the CALL syntax is merely
> > syntactic sugar. You could (if you wanted to) do the following:
>
> > CREATE FUNCTION foo( a TEXT IN, b TEXT INOUT, c TEXT OUT ) as blah...
>
> > And in a pl/pgsql function, translate: "CALL foo(a,b,c)"
> > into "(b,c) = foo(a,b)" internally.
>
>No, Pavel's right: that doesn't work because it's ambiguous. How do you
>tell whether "CALL foo(a,b,c)" means
>
> a,b,c := foo();
> b,c := foo(a);
> c := foo(a,b);
> select foo(a,b,c);
>
>There could be functions foo matching all four interpretations.
we can do some hints:
CALL foo(a, OUT b, OUT c)
it's better than nothing
comments?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
_________________________________________________________________
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com.
http://www.msn.cz/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-07 17:44:46 | Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2006-08-07 17:32:18 | Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough |