Tom,
> Jan might remember more about his thought process here, but I'm thinking > that he copied the SELECT-must-have-INTO rule and then chose to invent > a new statement for the case of wanting to discard the result. I think > you could make an argument for that being good from an oversight-detection > standpoint, but it's not a really strong argument. Particularly in view > of the difficulty we'd have in supporting WITH ... PERFORM ... nicely, > it doesn't seem unreasonable to just allow SELECT-without-INTO. For my own part, I have to correct forgetting to substitute "PERORM" for "SELECT" around 200 times each major PL/pgSQL project. So it would be user-friendly for it to go away. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
