Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Andres Freund <
> > writes:
>> On 2014-06-13 16:12:36 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Quan' example is 100% valid in SQL/PSM and what I read about ADA then in
>>> ADA too.
>> So what? plpgsql is neither language and this doesn't seem to be the way
>> to make them actually closer (which I doubt would be a good idea in the
>> first place).
> What plpgsql actually tries to model is Oracle's PL/SQL, in which this
> syntax is specifically *not* allowed (at least according to the 2008-or-so
> manual I have handy).
> At the very least I think we should stay away from this syntax until
> the SQL committee understand it better than they evidently do today.
> I don't want to implement it and then get caught by a future
> clarification that resolves the issue differently than we did.
Haven't read the patch so, conceptually...
Its not quite as unclear as you make it out to be:
local_a, local_b, local_c text := 'a1----';
The "text" type declaration MUST apply to all three variables, so extending
that to include the default assignment would be the internally consistent
I'm not sure the following would be useful but:
var_1, var_2, var_3 integer := generate_series(1,3)
If the expression results in either a 3x1 or a 1x3 (in the three var
example) we could do an expansion. If it results in a 1x1 that value would
be copied without re-executing the function.
Though I suppose someone might want to do the following:
random_1, random_2, random_3 float := random(1234);
The decision to copy, not re-execute, is safer to use as the behavior and
force explicitness in the re-execute situation.
Until then suggest that the friend do:
local_a text := 'a1----';
local_b text := local_a;
local_c text := local_a;
View this message in context:
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: