Re: Anonymous code blocks
От | Petr Jelinek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Anonymous code blocks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4AB595DA.3020609@pjmodos.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Anonymous code blocks (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane napsal(a): <blockquote cite="mid:14669.1253412760@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Andrew Dunstan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:andrew@dunslane.net"><andrew@dunslane.net></a> writes: </pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Dimitri Fontaine wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">So here arethe major points about this patch: - it's missing the returns declaration syntax (default value could be returns void?) - it would be much more friendly to users if it had a default output for queries, the returned object seems a good fit </pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre wrap=""> </pre><blockquote type="cite"><prewrap="">Really? That wasn't my expectation at all. I expected that the code would in effect be always returning void. I think you're moving the goalposts a bit here. I don't think we need a RETURNS clause on it for it to be useful. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> I think adding onto DO capabilities is something we could do later if demand warrants. I'd prefer to underdesign it for starters than to encrust it with features that might not be needed. </pre></blockquote><br /> Right, RETURNS can be added later withoutbreaking any existing code for users so no problem there (same goes for removing the requirement of BEGIN ... ENDfor example).<br /><br /><blockquote cite="mid:14669.1253412760@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">BTW, what happenswith the current patch if you try to do a RETURN? </pre></blockquote><br /> Throws same error as function definedwith RETURNS void.<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Regards Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)</pre>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: