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
