Re: updated patch for foreach stmt - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: updated patch for foreach stmt
Date
Msg-id 7952.1297830579@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: updated patch for foreach stmt  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: updated patch for foreach stmt  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 02/15/2011 08:59 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Anyhoo, forcing the explicit ARRAY keyword in there seems like pretty
>> cheap future-proofing to me.  YMMV.

> If this is the syntax that makes you do things like:
>      FOREACH foo IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,3]
> I have to say I find that pretty darn ugly still.

Yeah, that was the argument against requiring ARRAY.  So it comes down
to whether you think we need future-proofing here.  I can't immediately
see any reason for us to need a keyword right there, but ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: updated patch for foreach stmt