Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in
Date
Msg-id 20110129130933.GM30352@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
> possibility for enhancing plpgsql in future.

I look forward to hearing from the silent majority on this then.

> the main issue was a maintainability of more complex FOR statement.

That would be a reason to not have this functionality at all, not a
reason to add confusion with a new top-level command.
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync