From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
Date: | 2013-08-23 18:43:55 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yxk11Y0Ov=+TKHZmvtuDjA+FaVv1sYctTuD0durddMpg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
> I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does one
> in one context (functions) and does something else in second context
> (procedures).
It's not really different -- it means 'return if able'. Also there
are a lot of things that would have to be different for other reasons
especially transaction management. It's not reasonable to expect same
behavior in function vs procedure context -- especially in terms of
sending output to the caller.
> On second hand, I am thinking so requirement PERFORM is good. A query that
> does some, but result is ignored, is strange (and it can be a performance
> fault), so we should not be too friendly in this use case.
Completely disagree. There are many cases where this is *not*
strange. For example:
SELECT writing_func(some_col) FROM foo;
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 18:45:05 | Re: Performance problem in PLPgSQL |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-08-23 18:38:35 | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |