From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: expression evaluation with expected datatypes |
Date: | 2012-07-10 14:50:15 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCaNw7zZudga1TFW5gitdBbg-55J+fLhhYpGY9jFD09cQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/7/10 Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> WITH FUNCTION foo(param list) returns rettype language foo AS (
>>>> definition here
>>>> )
>>>> <query using foo() here>;
>>>
>>> I like this idea. This gets rid of both the "how to pass parameters"
>>> and the "how to return results" issues that exist with DO, as well as
>>> assorted implementation problems that you hinted at by asking whether
>>> DO would still be a utility command.
>>
>> what is use case for this statement?
>
> It's the DO block idea turned into a query rather than a utility
> command: you can now run a function that does not exists in the catalogs
> *and* feed it parameters (either from the client, as literals in the
> main query, or from the query itself) *and* you get a query result our
> of it.
>
> I'm not sure I can understand the difference between that and the use
> case for which you want to implement DO blocks with parameters.
this is similar to temporary functions - you need some temporary name
- it is insert to pg_proc, and you have to solve possible conflicts.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Dimitri Fontaine
> http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-10 14:56:50 | Re: expression evaluation with expected datatypes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-10 14:44:03 | Re: Re: Allow replacement of bloated primary key indexes without foreign key rebuilds |