Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On 9/9/16 2:57 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/6/16 9:59 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> Thanks for the review. All your comments look pretty reasonable. I'll >> touch it up and resubmit. > > This is the last email in this thread that the commit fest app shows. I > think we are waiting on an

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On 6/6/16 9:59 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Thanks for the review. All your comments look pretty reasonable. I'll > touch it up and resubmit. This is the last email in this thread that the commit fest app shows. I think we are waiting on an updated patch, with docs and tests. -- Peter

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:45 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> >> >> Anyways, here's the patch with documentation adjustments as promised. >> I ended up keeping the 'without result' section because

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-06-05 5:45 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston : > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> >> Anyways, here's the patch with documentation adjustments as promised. >> I ended up keeping the 'without result' section because it contained

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 at 10:34 Robert Haas wrote: > Yeah, I think requiring PERFORM is stupid and annoying. +1 for > letting people write a SELECT with no target. > Apologies for being late on the thread, but another +1 from me. I've often been frustrated by the

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > Anyways, here's the patch with documentation adjustments as promised. > I ended up keeping the 'without result' section because it contained > useful information about plan caching, > > merlin > > diff --git

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-04-11 15:37 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure : > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > 2016-03-21 22:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Hi > > 2016-03-21 22:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : >> >> Hi >> >> 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : >>> >>> Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-).

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2016-04-10 18:49 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston : > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2016-04-10 17:49 GMT+02:00 David

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-04-10 18:49 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston : > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> >> >> 2016-04-10 17:49 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston >> : >> >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Pavel

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > 2016-04-10 17:49 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston : > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> 2016-03-21 22:13 GMT+01:00

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-04-10 17:49 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston : > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> 2016-03-21 22:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : >> >>> Hi >>> >>> 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > 2016-03-21 22:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > >> Hi >> >> 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : >> >>> Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-).

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

Hi 2016-03-21 22:13 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : > >> Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-). >> >> I see no useful reason to require INTO when returning data with >> SELECT. However,

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 3/22/16 8:37 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On 3/22/16 8:37 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: 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. I see your point here, but the cost of doing that far

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 2016-03-22 6:06 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : >> >> Pavel Stehule writes: >> > I can live with SELECT fx(x). It is little bit dangerous, but this risk >> > can >> > be easy

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-03-22 6:06 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule 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

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

Pavel Stehule 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? >> So, I'm -1 on not having any keyword at all. I have no objection >> to Merlin's proposal though. I agree that

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-03-21 23:49 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane : > Jim Nasby writes: > > On 3/21/16 5:03 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> in Oracle, you'd simply do: > >> LogIt('I did something'); > > > It would be *great* if we could support that in plpgsql. > > FWIW, I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-03-21 23:26 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 3/21/16 5:03 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> in Oracle, you'd simply do: >> LogIt('I did something'); >> > > It would be *great* if we could support that in plpgsql. > > I'm not sure what Oracle does for SELECT statements

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

2016-03-21 23:03 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > > Hi > > > > 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : > >> > >> Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-). > >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. Yeah, I think requiring

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. All right -- I'll submit

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

Jim Nasby writes: > On 3/21/16 5:03 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> in Oracle, you'd simply do: >> LogIt('I did something'); > It would be *great* if we could support that in plpgsql. FWIW, I'm hesitant to just start accepting that syntax as if it were an equivalent to

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On 3/21/16 5:03 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: in Oracle, you'd simply do: LogIt('I did something'); It would be *great* if we could support that in plpgsql. I'm not sure what Oracle does for SELECT statements without INTO/BULK UPDATE. I'm not really inclined to care -- I'm really curious to see

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hi > > 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : >> >> Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-). >> >> I see no useful reason to require INTO when returning data with >> SELECT.

Re: [HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

Hi 2016-03-21 21:24 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure : > Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-). > > I see no useful reason to require INTO when returning data with > SELECT. However, requiring queries to indicate not needing data via > PERFORM causes some annoyances: >

[HACKERS] Relax requirement for INTO with SELECT in pl/pgsql

Patch is trivial (see below), discussion is not :-). I see no useful reason to require INTO when returning data with SELECT. However, requiring queries to indicate not needing data via PERFORM causes some annoyances: *) converting routines back and forth between pl/pgsql and pl/sql requires