Re: DO ... RETURNING
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DO ... RETURNING |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHyXU0yuUpNEvLLTOODmVKZPGk+kizDwxXVHdjqV90hHg3GBTQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DO ... RETURNING (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Could you point to the ISO/ANSI SQL CALL definition ? I can't: no one can because the SQL standard is not available online. But you can look at various proxies, for example here: http://farrago.sourceforge.net/design/UserDefinedTypesAndRoutines.html or here: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/admin/r0000897.htm > As I said before, it is doable now using pl/pgsql and dblink / plproxy > and is trivial in pl/python. >> That said, it would be pretty cool if you could inline DO into a CTE >> or more generally into a query (is that possible?) > Currently not possible, especially because DO does not return > anything at this moment. right, well, I meant hypothetically; I was following along with your thinking and extending inline code blocks to be able to be used in any place where a function is allowed. Specifically I was wondering if there are technical limitations that keep them limited to CTE usage (as is the case with data modifying WITH). merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: