From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Adrian Klaver" <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Christophe <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Running a PL/pgSQL function |
Date: | 2008-08-12 01:52:49 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10808111852t419233b2qe39b2dafa95ded46@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
> On Monday 11 August 2008 4:24:17 pm Christophe wrote:
>> I'm startled that I've never done this before, but... I have a PL/
>> pgSQL function that takes no arguments, returns VOID, and has a bunch
>> of side effects on the database. The correct way of invoking this
>> function is:
>>
>> SELECT my_func();
>>
>> ... yes? Thanks; it seems to work fine, but using SELECT here is
>> causing some part of my brain to scream "counter-intuitive."
>
> Similar to doing:
>
> test=# SELECT 1+1;
> ?column?
> ----------
> 2
Hey, it beats select 1+1 from dual!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Dennis | 2008-08-12 03:35:26 | different results based solely on existence of index (no, seriously) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-12 01:43:05 | Re: Running a PL/pgSQL function |