Re: DO ... RETURNING
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DO ... RETURNING |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRCY0KY5gi+5V0gM05gVczc5u+yoDOMw8mFH-iBRcZw+8w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | DO ... RETURNING (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: DO ... RETURNING
Re: DO ... RETURNING |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2013/6/10 Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>: > Hallo Everybody > > As far as I can see, currently you can not return > anything out of a DO (anonymous code) block. > > Something like > > DO LANGUAGE plpythonu RETURNS TABLE (name text, uid int, gid int) $$ > with open('/etc/passwd') as f: > fields = f.readline().split(':') > while fields: > name, uid, gid = fields[0], int(fields[2]),int(fields[3]) > yield name, uid, gid > fields = f.readline().split(':') > $$; > > As I did not pay attention when DO was introduced, > I thought it is faster to ask here than read all possibly > relevant mails in archives > > So: has there been a discussion on extending the DO > construct with ability to rturn data out of it, similar > to what named functions do. > > If there was then what were the arguments against doing this ? > > Or was this just that it was not thought important at that time ? I don't like this idea. I know so DO is +/- function, but it is too restrict. I hope so we will have a procedures with possibility unbound queries. and then you can do DO $$ SELECT * FROM pg_class; SELECT * FROM pg_proc; ... $$ LANGUAGE SQL; and you don't need to define output structure - what is much more user friendly. Regards Pavel > > -- > Hannu Krosing > PostgreSQL Consultant > Performance, Scalability and High Availability > 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: