Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls
Date
Msg-id 20890.1095345269@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: PL/PgSQL "bare" function calls  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 01:19, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> ISTM that this is being done at the wrong level anyway.

> I think these are two distinct issues.

I think Andrew has a point: why aren't they the same issue?  It would
certainly be no harder to supportfunc( ... );
as a SQL statement than as something allowed only in plpgsql.  I think
it'd be easier to make it work in the full bison grammar than with some
lookahead hack in plpgsql.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Core Committee Welcomes New Member
Next
From: Dennis Bjorklund
Date:
Subject: Re: subtransaction assert failure