Robert Haas wrote: > > 2009/1/10 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >>> Uh, is this ready to be applied? > >> > >> I don't think any consensus has been reached on changing this behavior. > > > > I thing, so this is bug - RETURN QUERY has to supply FOR SELECT LOOP > > RETURN NEXT pattern. > > > > My first patch expected so RETURN QUERY is final statement, so I don't > > solve FOUND variable, but Heikki changed this behave. > > > > Without correct FOUND behave we can't to use RETURN QUERY for following > > pattern > > > > RETURN QUERY some; > > IF FOUND THEN RETURN; END IF; > > RETURN QUERY some_other; > > RETURN; > > +1. I can't imagine it's good for this to be randomly inconsistent.
So should this be applied or just kept for 8.5? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
