Re: doc: update PL/pgSQL sample loop function
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Barwick <ian.barwick@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-09-11T09:50:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:40 AM Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > st 11. 9. 2019 v 7:45 odesílatel Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> napsal: >> >> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > The current example shows the usage of looping in plpgsql, so as such >> > there is no correctness issue, but OTOH there is no harm in updating >> > the example as proposed by Ian Barwick. Does anyone else see any >> > problem with this idea? If we agree to proceed with this update, it >> > might be better to backpatch it for the sake of consistency though I >> > am not sure about that. >> > >> >> While checking the patch in back-branches, I noticed that it doesn't >> get applied to 9.4 due to the way the example forms the string. I >> have done the required changes for 9.4 as well and attached is the >> result. >> > > Is question if for this queries should not be used some from information_schema instead direct access to pg_catalog. > > But I looked now, and we don't see materialized views in information_schema - what is probably bug. > I think you got the answer of this on a related thread. Do you see any other problems or have any concerns about this? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Doc: Update PL/pgSQL sample function in plpgsql.sgml.
- 1f705e68ee4f 9.4.25 landed
- 1ae57833e26f 9.5.20 landed
- 2db5262549ef 9.6.16 landed
- a477f250a3ea 10.11 landed
- 1fcb73fe72dc 11.6 landed
- fef55c569eed 12.0 landed
- 9b3c8f07ff3f 13.0 landed