Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql
| От | Pavel Stehule |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFj8pRDFkx1Fq=xmmCwB6Djc=z5tzNdPgur-g1MqEwG7fbtZGw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
2016-03-22 6:06 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I can live with SELECT fx(x). It is little bit dangerous, but this risk can
> be easy detected by plpgsql_check.
Dangerous how?
I afraid of useless and forgotten call of functions. But the risk is same like PERFORM - so this is valid from one half. The PERFORM statement holds special semantic, and it is interesting.
But I don't see any risk if we allow SELECT fx(x) without INTO when fx is void function. It is absolutely correct.
>> So, I'm -1 on not having any keyword at all. I have no objection
>> to Merlin's proposal though. I agree that PERFORM is starting to
>> look a bit silly, since it doesn't play with WITH for instance.
> Isn't time to fix PERFORM instead?
I do not think it can be fixed without embedding knowledge of PERFORM into
the core parser, which I doubt anybody would consider a good idea.
I don't see, why PERFORM should be in core parser? What use case should be fixed?
Regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: