From: | "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
Date: | 2006-05-18 04:13:00 |
Message-ID: | c2d9e70e0605172113i4a38ae7am5fb5e261d9ee809c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/17/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> (No, I'm not particularly in favor of the BY feature mentioned upthread,
> >> either.)
>
> > mmm... and why is that?
>
> Essentially because it's not in the upstream language. Oracle could
> come out with the same feature next week, only they use STEP or some
> other syntax for it, and then we'd have a mess on our hands. If the
> feature were sufficiently compelling use-wise then I'd be willing to
> risk that, but it doesn't seem to me to be more than a marginal
> notational improvement.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
good point... just one comment, if you disallow the ability to modify
the loop variable the BY clause won't be a "notational" improvement
anymore (but it still will be a marginal one, must admit)... so i
think that the painless path is to do nothing at all...
no BY clause, no disallow the ability to modify the loop variable...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2006-05-18 04:24:54 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-05-18 04:08:21 | Desperately Seeking Mentors -- Right Now! |