Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwarwoQKLRUQViY8TnEV1wi=jX2y85SS+3ErEbca9ABfEw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:51 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:


po 30. 11. 2020 v 4:24 odesílatel David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> napsal:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 12:49 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:


čt 26. 11. 2020 v 6:41 odesílatel David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> napsal:
Hackers,

Bug # 16519 [1] is another report of confusion regarding trying to use parameters in improper locations - specifically the SET ROLE command within pl/pgsql.  I'm re-attaching the doc patch and am adding it to the commitfest.

I checked this patch, and I think so it is correct - my comments are just about enhancing by some examples


Thank you for the review.

v2 attached.

I added examples in the two places you noted.

Upon re-reading, I decided that opening up the section by including everything then fitting in parameters with an exception for utility commands (without previously/otherwise identifying them) forced some undesirable verbosity.  Instead, I opened up with the utility commands as the main body of non-result returning commands and then moved onto delete/insert/update non-returning cases when the subsequent paragraph regarding parameters can then refer to the second class (by way of excluding the first class).  This seems to flow better, IMO.

I have no objections, but maybe these pages are a little bit unclear generally, because the core of the problem is not described.

 
Personally I miss a description of the reason why variables cannot be used - the description "variables cannot be used in statements without result" is true, but it is not core information.

In the section "executing commands that don't return results" it does seem like core information...but I get your point.


The important fact is usage of an execution plan or not.

This is already mentioned in the linked-to section:

"Variable substitution currently works only in SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE commands, because the main SQL engine allows query parameters only in these commands. To use a non-constant name or value in other statement types (generically called utility statements), you must construct the utility statement as a string and EXECUTE it."

I didn't feel the need to repeat that material in full in the "no results" section.  I left that pointing out the "results" dynamic there would be useful since the original wording seemed to forget about the presence of utility commands altogether which was confusing for that section.

David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Keeps tracking the uniqueness with UniqueKey