From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal - plpgsql - all plpgsql auto variables should be constant |
Date: | 2020-04-28 11:34:59 |
Message-ID: | CAExHW5saBJYcZyt5a73ZFTnyEv8vH5h-BUujUoxPPvACr3UTbQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 7:56 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 10:08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > I'm skeptical. If we'd marked them that way from day one, it would have
> > been fine, but to change it now is a whole different discussion. I think
> > the odds that anybody will thank us are much smaller than the odds that
> > there will be complaints. In particular, I'd be just about certain that
> > there are people out there who are changing FOUND and loop control
> > variables manually, and they will not appreciate us breaking their code.
>
> I kind of doubt it would break anybody's code. But I also doubt it's
> actually going to help anybody. It's not exactly an easy bug to write,
> so meh, I can't really get worked up either way about this.
We could retain the old behaviour by using a GUC which defaults to old
behaviour. More GUCs means more confusion, this once guc under plpgsql
extension might actually help.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tushar | 2020-04-28 11:39:13 | [pg_dump] 'create index' statement is failing due to search_path is empty |
Previous Message | Muhammad Usama | 2020-04-28 10:37:11 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |