Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml
Date
Msg-id 1069794986.21305.538.camel@camel
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 14:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > > !     SELECT INTO users_rec * FROM users WHERE user_id=3;
> > > --- 986,993 ----
> > > !     SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id=3 INTO users_rec;
> >
> > Why do you want to change the example to disagree with the advice given
> > just above?
> >
> > : At present, the INTO clause can appear almost anywhere in the SELECT
> > : statement, but it is recommended to place it immediately after the
> > : SELECT key word as depicted above. Future versions of PL/pgSQL may be
> > : less forgiving about placement of the INTO clause.
>
> Well, that position is a strange choice.  The standard syntax of SELECT
> INTO in embedded SQL is
>
> SELECT a, b, c INTO :x, :y, :z FROM ...
>
> This should probably be consistent.
>

Funny. That's a good argument for doing it that way, but almost the same
argument I make for putting the INTO at the end: so as to not confuse
people with the "SELECT a,b,c INTO newtable FROM oldtable" sql syntax.
In either case ISTM the existing recommendation is flawed.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: minor cleanup in plpgsql.sgml