2013/8/23 Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> > 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. >
But it can have a different reason. In T-SQL (Microsoft or Sybase) or MySQL a unbound query is used to direct transfer data to client side. There BEGIN SELECT 10; END; doesn't mean "ignore result of query", but it means push result to client. And we doesn't support this functionality, so I prefer doesn't allow this syntax. Regards Pavel > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL Experts Inc. > http://pgexperts.com >
