On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not the reading I want, and it's not the reading you want either,
>> but there is nothing in the existing text that justifies single
>> evaluation.  So I think we'd be well advised to sit on our hands until
>> the committee clarifies that.  It's not like there is some urgent reason
>> to have this feature.
> Agreed.
> I don't suppose there is any support or prohibition on the :
> one,two,three integer := generate_series(1,3);
> interpretation...not that I can actually come up with a good use case that
> wouldn't be better implemented via a loop in the main body.

Based on these comments and the remarks by Alvaro and Andres, I think
it's clear that we should reject this patch.  The number of patches
that get through with -1 votes from 3 committers is very small, if not
zero.  While I like the feature in the abstract, I agree with Tom that
it would be better to wait until we have more clarity about what the
semantics are supposed to be.

I will update the CommitFest app accordingly.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to