2013/6/10 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> not too much. Two different concepts in one statement is not good >> idea. > > What are the different concepts..? We already have set returning > functions, why would set returning anonymous functions be any different?
1. DO as function 2. DO as batch > >> What using a cursors as temporary solution? > > That only works when you want to just return the results of a table. > What if you want to construct the data set in the DO block? Okay, fine, > you could use a temp table, but what if you don't have rights to create > temporary tables? > >> Still I don't like this idea, because you should to support DO >> RETURNING in other statements - like INSERT INTO DO RETURNING ??? > > That would certainly be neat, but it doesn't have to be there in the > first incarnation, or really, ever, if it turns out to be painful to do. > this is reason, why I dislike it - It is introduce significant strange SQL extension >> What about local temporary functions ?? > > You can already create temporary functions by simply creating them in > pg_temp. I'd like to see us add explicit support for them though, but I > don't see this as related to the DO-RETURNING question. I don't think we have to introduce a new NON ANSI concept, when is possible using current feature. so for me -1 Pavel > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
