Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?
| От | Timothy Madden |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5078d8af0910251606r262f26bfn5290b539b5aa3b68@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?
Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
You know that takes quite some effort to invest. How are you sure a patch for this will be
welcome when people here mostly disagree with me ?
I don't understand, what CONNECT BY or WITH RECURSIVE ?
Timothy Madden escribió:"Should" being the operative word in that sentence. If you want to
> Anyway Posgres offers a CREATE FUNCTION statement that resembles or should
> resemble that in the standard, and that is what I am talking about.
submit a patch to move us closer towards the SQL/PSM goal, I'm sure it
will be welcome.
You know that takes quite some effort to invest. How are you sure a patch for this will be
welcome when people here mostly disagree with me ?
> I just want the Postgres version of the statement to look more likeSure. If we weren't all pointing in that general direction, we would
> the standard one.
probably have CONNECT BY instead of WITH RECURSIVE.
I don't understand, what CONNECT BY or WITH RECURSIVE ?
Thank you,
Timothy Madden
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: