2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 2013/8/23 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> > > I think so is not good if some programming language functionality does > one > > in one context (functions) and does something else in second context > > (procedures). > > It's not really different -- it means 'return if able'. Also there > are a lot of things that would have to be different for other reasons > especially transaction management. It's not reasonable to expect same > behavior in function vs procedure context -- especially in terms of > sending output to the caller. > > > On second hand, I am thinking so requirement PERFORM is good. A query > that > > does some, but result is ignored, is strange (and it can be a performance > > fault), so we should not be too friendly in this use case. > > Completely disagree. There are many cases where this is *not* > strange. For example: > SELECT writing_func(some_col) FROM foo; >
it is about a personal taste - if you prefer more verbose or less verbose languages. I feeling a PERFORM usage as something special and you example is nice case, where I am think so PERFORM is good for verbosity. Regards Pavel > > merlin >
