On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 17:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matt Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 17:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I dislike the choice of "EXACT", too, as it (a) adds a new reserved word
> >> and (b) doesn't seem to convey quite what is happening anyway.  Not sure
> >> about a better word though ... anyone?
> > I can attach a patch that supports [EXACT | NOEXACT].
> Somehow, proposing two new reserved words instead of one doesn't seem
> very responsive to my gripe :-(.

My intention was to introduce the idea that the current behavior should
be changed, and to then suggest a path that eventually eliminates all
the new reserved words.

> If you think that this should be a global option instead of a
> per-statement one, something like the (undocumented) #option hack might
> be a good way to specify it; that would give it per-function scope,
> which seems reasonable.
>       create function myfn(...) returns ... as $$
>               #option select_into_1_row
>               declare ...
>       $$ language plpgsql;

Thanks, I'll take a look at this.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to