Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan
Date
Msg-id 31523.1504904977@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> personally I prefer syntax without FOR keyword - because following keyword
> must be reserved keyword

> SET x = .., y = .. SELECT ... ;

Nope.  Most of the statement-starting keywords are *not* fully reserved;
they don't need to be as long as they lead off the statement.  But this
proposal would break that.  We need to put FOR or IN or another
already-fully-reserved keyword after the SET list, or something's going
to bite us.
        regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tupconvert.c API change in v10 release notes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PoC plpgsql - possibility to force custom or generic plan