On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > Tom Lane-2 wrote >> At the very least I think we should stay away from this syntax until >> the SQL committee understand it better than they evidently do today. >> I don't want to implement it and then get caught by a future >> clarification that resolves the issue differently than we did.
> Its not quite as unclear as you make it out to be:
Yes it is.
Not withstanding the decision making of the SQL committee I was rejecting as inconsistent:
SET random_1 = 0;
SET random_2 = 0;
SET random_3 = random(1234);
The ambiguity regarding re-execute or copy still remains.
That's not the reading I want, and it's not the reading you want either, but there is nothing in the existing text that justifies single evaluation. So I think we'd be well advised to sit on our hands until the committee clarifies that. It's not like there is some urgent reason to have this feature.
Agreed.
I don't suppose there is any support or prohibition on the :
one,two,three integer := generate_series(1,3);
interpretation...not that I can actually come up with a good use case that wouldn't be better implemented via a loop in the main body.
