Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 10 10:56:50 -0400 2012:
>> What's to solve? Presumably the WITH function name would take
>> precedence over anything in the catalogs, the same as WITH query names
>> take precedence over actual tables.
> Hm, would the newly def
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 10 10:56:50 -0400 2012:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > 2012/7/10 Dimitri Fontaine :
> >> I'm not sure I can understand the difference between that and the use
> >> case for which you want to implement DO blocks with parameters.
>
> > this is similar to te
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2012/7/10 Dimitri Fontaine :
>> I'm not sure I can understand the difference between that and the use
>> case for which you want to implement DO blocks with parameters.
> this is similar to temporary functions - you need some temporary name
> - it is insert to pg_proc, and
2012/7/10 Dimitri Fontaine :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
WITH FUNCTION foo(param list) returns rettype language foo AS (
definition here
)
;
>>>
>>> I like this idea. This gets rid of both the "how to pass parameters"
>>> and the "how to return results" issues that exist
Pavel Stehule writes:
>>> WITH FUNCTION foo(param list) returns rettype language foo AS (
>>> definition here
>>> )
>>> ;
>>
>> I like this idea. This gets rid of both the "how to pass parameters"
>> and the "how to return results" issues that exist with DO, as well as
>> assorted imple
2012/7/10 Tom Lane :
> Dimitri Fontaine writes:
>> We could imagine several syntax to show up the idea, common keywords
>> here include LAMBDA, FLET or LABELS, but I think that expanding WITH
>> would be preferable for us.
>
>> WITH FUNCTION foo(param list) returns rettype language foo AS (
>>
Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> We could imagine several syntax to show up the idea, common keywords
> here include LAMBDA, FLET or LABELS, but I think that expanding WITH
> would be preferable for us.
> WITH FUNCTION foo(param list) returns rettype language foo AS (
> definition here
> )
>
2012/7/10 Dimitri Fontaine :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
>
> DO currently is a utility command, not a query. Do you mean to change
> that?
>
> Also, did you think about a lambda construct, which is basically
> allowing func
Pavel Stehule writes:
> When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
DO currently is a utility command, not a query. Do you mean to change
that?
Also, did you think about a lambda construct, which is basically
allowing functions to be defined inline in a query?
We
2012/7/8 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
>
>> Syntax is:
>
>> DO (param list) $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE ... USING expr_list
>
>> What is correct way for evaluation of expr_list with specified target types?
>
> I'd argue tha
Pavel Stehule writes:
> When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
> Syntax is:
> DO (param list) $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE ... USING expr_list
> What is correct way for evaluation of expr_list with specified target types?
I'd argue that that's a pointlessly unwieldy
Hello
When I worked on parametrised DO statement, I had to solve following issue:
Syntax is:
DO (param list) $$ ... $$ LANGUAGE ... USING expr_list
What is correct way for evaluation of expr_list with specified target types?
I used two techniques:
1) evaluation expressions -
http://archives.p
12 matches
Mail list logo
