2016-03-22 6:06 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I can live with SELECT fx(x). It is little bit dangerous, but this risk
> can
> > be easy detected by plpgsql_check.
> Dangerous how?

I afraid of useless and forgotten call of functions. But the risk is same
like PERFORM - so this is valid from one half. The PERFORM statement holds
special semantic, and it is interesting.

But I don't see any risk if we allow SELECT fx(x) without INTO when fx is
void function. It is absolutely correct.

> >> So, I'm -1 on not having any keyword at all.  I have no objection
> >> to Merlin's proposal though.  I agree that PERFORM is starting to
> >> look a bit silly, since it doesn't play with WITH for instance.
> > Isn't time to fix PERFORM instead?
> I do not think it can be fixed without embedding knowledge of PERFORM into
> the core parser, which I doubt anybody would consider a good idea.

I don't see, why PERFORM should be in core parser? What use case should be



>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to