Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRBqYqRB0y4r9Zihs_Nzkss=OCEERnn8fDAr0uXDzikjsw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PL/pgSQL PERFORM with CTE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:>It's not really different -- it means 'return if able'. Also there
>
>
> 2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.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).
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.Completely disagree. There are many cases where this is *not*
> 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.
strange. For example:
SELECT writing_func(some_col) FROM foo;
it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less verbose languages.
I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice case, where I am think so PERFORM is good for verbosity.
Regards
Pavel
Pavel
merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: