Horton

Thread

  1. WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2010-12-23T20:30:49Z

    Hello

attached patch contains a implementation of iteration over a array:

Regards

Pavel Stehule

  2. REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-19T23:04:31Z

    Greetings,

* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> attached patch contains a implementation of iteration over a array:

I've gone through this patch and, in general, it looks pretty reasonable
to me.  There's a number of places where I think additional comments
would be good and maybe some variable name improvments.  Also, my
changes should be reviewed to make sure they make sense.

Attached is a patch against master which includes my changes, and a
patch against Pavel's patch, so he can more easily see my changes and
include them if he'd like.

I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.

commit 30295015739930e68c33b29da4f7ef535bc293ea
Author: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date:   Wed Jan 19 17:58:24 2011 -0500

    Clean up foreach-in-array PL/PgSQL code/comments
    
    Minor clean-up of the PL/PgSQL foreach-in-array patch, includes
    some white-space cleanup, grammar fixes, additional errhint where
    it makes sense, etc.
    
    Also added a number of 'XXX' comments asking for clarification
    and additional comments on what's happening in the code.

commit f1a02fe3a8fa84217dae32d5ba74e9764c77431c
Author: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date:   Wed Jan 19 15:11:53 2011 -0500

    PL/PgSQL - Add interate-over-array support
    
    This patch adds support for iterating over an array in PL/PgSQL.
    
    Patch Author: Pavel Stehule

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  3. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-01-20T01:56:31Z

    On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.

That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
CommitFest.  Perhaps you mean Waiting on Author?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  4. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-20T01:58:49Z

    * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
> 
> That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
> CommitFest.  Perhaps you mean Waiting on Author?

I did, actually, and that's what I actually marked it as in the CF.
Sorry for any confusion.  When I went to mark it in CF, I realized my
mistake.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  5. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-20T09:34:26Z

    2011/1/20 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> > I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
>>
>> That implies you don't think it should be considered further for this
>> CommitFest.  Perhaps you mean Waiting on Author?
>
> I did, actually, and that's what I actually marked it as in the CF.
> Sorry for any confusion.  When I went to mark it in CF, I realized my
> mistake.
>

ok :), I'll look on it tomorrow.

regards

Pavel

>        Thanks,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk03ltkACgkQrzgMPqB3kihSmQCePy6+fpC7RJdki5guPRCLp5IZ
> EJMAoIqgjb+IsG853/gC9T9xgFg5M5aM
> =VLWh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

  6. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-21T22:14:16Z

    Hello

I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.

Regards

Pavel Stehule


2011/1/20 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> Greetings,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> attached patch contains a implementation of iteration over a array:
>
> I've gone through this patch and, in general, it looks pretty reasonable
> to me.  There's a number of places where I think additional comments
> would be good and maybe some variable name improvments.  Also, my
> changes should be reviewed to make sure they make sense.
>
> Attached is a patch against master which includes my changes, and a
> patch against Pavel's patch, so he can more easily see my changes and
> include them if he'd like.
>
> I'm going to mark this returned to author with feedback.
>
> commit 30295015739930e68c33b29da4f7ef535bc293ea
> Author: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
> Date:   Wed Jan 19 17:58:24 2011 -0500
>
>    Clean up foreach-in-array PL/PgSQL code/comments
>
>    Minor clean-up of the PL/PgSQL foreach-in-array patch, includes
>    some white-space cleanup, grammar fixes, additional errhint where
>    it makes sense, etc.
>
>    Also added a number of 'XXX' comments asking for clarification
>    and additional comments on what's happening in the code.
>
> commit f1a02fe3a8fa84217dae32d5ba74e9764c77431c
> Author: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
> Date:   Wed Jan 19 15:11:53 2011 -0500
>
>    PL/PgSQL - Add interate-over-array support
>
>    This patch adds support for iterating over an array in PL/PgSQL.
>
>    Patch Author: Pavel Stehule
>
>        Thanks,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk03bf8ACgkQrzgMPqB3kihxuwCfZYKFpEraRCIltlUeYtD9AyX0
> tvoAnjuxddXhZB6w2/V9oVSD1+K7Idu9
> =w38Z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

  7. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-24T02:49:37Z

    Pavel,

* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.

Thanks.  Reviewing this further-

Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
variation of 'FOR'?  What is 'FOUND' set to following this?  I realize
that might make the code easier, but it really doesn't seem to make much
sense to me from a usability point of view.

There also appears to be some extra whitespace changes that aren't
necessary and a number of places where you don't follow the indentation
conventions (eg: variable definitions in exec_stmt_foreach_a()).

I'm still not really thrilled with how the checking for scalar vs.
array, etc, is handled.  Additionally, what is this? :

        else if (stmt->row != NULL)
        {   
            ctrl_var = estate->datums[stmt->row->dno];
        }
        else
        {
            ctrl_var = estate->datums[stmt->rec->dno];
        }

Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
loops.  I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of items
and then to *not* update 'i' inside the inner-loop.  That structure is
really just confusing, imv (I certainly didn't entirely follow what was
happening there the first time I read it).  Isn't there a function you
could use to pull out the array slice you need on each iteration through
the array?

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  8. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-01-24T03:50:41Z

    On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Pavel,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
>
> Thanks.  Reviewing this further-
>
> Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> variation of 'FOR'?

Uh oh.  You just reopened the can of worms from hell.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  9. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-24T03:54:05Z

    * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> > variation of 'FOR'?
> 
> Uh oh.  You just reopened the can of worms from hell.

hahahaha.  Apparently I missed that discussion; also wasn't linked off
the patch. :/  Guess I'll go poke through the archives...  Struck me as
obviously wrong to invent something completely new for this, but..

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  10. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-24T04:05:55Z

    * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> Uh oh.  You just reopened the can of worms from hell.

Alright..  I'm missing what happened to this suggestion of using:

FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...

I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword, for the
same reasons that Tom mentioned: using a different initial keyword
makes it awkward to make generic statements about "all types of FOR
loop" (as I noticed while looking through the documentation changes that
should be made for this); and also some of the other comments about how
FOREACH doesn't give you any clue that this is some
array-specific-FOR-loop-thingy.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  11. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-24T08:57:39Z

    2011/1/24 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> Pavel,
>
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I merge your changes and little enhanced comments.
>
> Thanks.  Reviewing this further-
>
> Why are you using 'FOREACH' here instead of just making it another
> variation of 'FOR'?  What is 'FOUND' set to following this?  I realize
> that might make the code easier, but it really doesn't seem to make much
> sense to me from a usability point of view.

FOR keyword - please, look on thread about my proposal FOR-IN-ARRAY

I work with FOUND variable, because I like a consistent behave with
FOR statement. When FOUND is true after cycle, you are sure, so there
was a minimally one iteration.

>
> There also appears to be some extra whitespace changes that aren't
> necessary and a number of places where you don't follow the indentation
> conventions (eg: variable definitions in exec_stmt_foreach_a()).

I am really not sure about correct indentation of variables :(, if you
know a correct number of spaces, please, fix it.

>
> I'm still not really thrilled with how the checking for scalar vs.
> array, etc, is handled.  Additionally, what is this? :
>
>        else if (stmt->row != NULL)
>        {
>            ctrl_var = estate->datums[stmt->row->dno];
>        }
>        else
>        {
>            ctrl_var = estate->datums[stmt->rec->dno];
>        }
>


PLpgSQL distinct between vars, row and record values. These structures
can be different and information about variable's offset in frame can
be on different position in structure. This IF means:

1) get offset of target variable
2) get addr, where is target variable saved in current frame

one note: a scalar or array can be saved on var type, only scalar can
be used on row or record type. This is often used pattern - you can
see it more time in executor.


> Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
> better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
> loops.  I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
> number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of items
> and then to *not* update 'i' inside the inner-loop.  That structure is
> really just confusing, imv (I certainly didn't entirely follow what was
> happening there the first time I read it).  Isn't there a function you
> could use to pull out the array slice you need on each iteration through
> the array?
>

I don't know a better short index identifiers than I used. But I am
not against to change.

I'll try to redesign main cycle.

Regards

Pavel Stehule



>        Thanks,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk086MEACgkQrzgMPqB3kigCzQCffx0iVSMjU2UbOgAOaY/MvtOp
> iKsAnA5tdhKxTssdXJ+Rda4qkhNVm26g
> =Yn5O
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

  12. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-24T11:10:03Z

    Hello

>
>
>> Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
>> better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
>> loops.  I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
>> number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of items
>> and then to *not* update 'i' inside the inner-loop.  That structure is
>> really just confusing, imv (I certainly didn't entirely follow what was
>> happening there the first time I read it).  Isn't there a function you
>> could use to pull out the array slice you need on each iteration through
>> the array?

I looked on code again. There are a few results:

I'll change identifiers 'i' and 'j' with any, that you send. It's
usual identifiers for nested loops and in this case they has really
well known semantic - it's subscript of array.

But others changes are more difficult

we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
array_get_slice, because there is high overhead of array_seek
function. I redesigned the initial part of main cycle, but code is
little bit longer :(, but I hope, it is more readable.

Regards

Pavel


>>
>
> I don't know a better short index identifiers than I used. But I am
> not against to change.
>
> I'll try to redesign main cycle.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel Stehule
>
>
>
>>        Thanks,
>>
>>                Stephen
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk086MEACgkQrzgMPqB3kigCzQCffx0iVSMjU2UbOgAOaY/MvtOp
>> iKsAnA5tdhKxTssdXJ+Rda4qkhNVm26g
>> =Yn5O
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>

  13. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Cédric Villemain <cedric.villemain.debian@gmail.com> — 2011-01-24T11:30:40Z

    2011/1/24 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:
> Hello
>
>>
>>
>>> Other comments- I don't like using 'i' and 'j', you really should use
>>> better variable names, especially in large loops which contain other
>>> loops.  I'd also suggest changing the outer loop to be equivilant to the
>>> number of iterations that will be done instead of the number of items
>>> and then to *not* update 'i' inside the inner-loop.  That structure is
>>> really just confusing, imv (I certainly didn't entirely follow what was
>>> happening there the first time I read it).  Isn't there a function you
>>> could use to pull out the array slice you need on each iteration through
>>> the array?
>
> I looked on code again. There are a few results:
>
> I'll change identifiers 'i' and 'j' with any, that you send. It's
> usual identifiers for nested loops and in this case they has really
> well known semantic - it's subscript of array.
>
> But others changes are more difficult
>
> we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
> array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
> can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
> array_get_slice, because there is high overhead of array_seek
> function. I redesigned the initial part of main cycle, but code is
> little bit longer :(, but I hope, it is more readable.

btw, having array_get_isnul accessible from contrib code is nice (I
used to copy/paste it for my own needs)

>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know a better short index identifiers than I used. But I am
>> not against to change.
>>
>> I'll try to redesign main cycle.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel Stehule
>>
>>
>>
>>>        Thanks,
>>>
>>>                Stephen
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAk086MEACgkQrzgMPqB3kigCzQCffx0iVSMjU2UbOgAOaY/MvtOp
>>> iKsAnA5tdhKxTssdXJ+Rda4qkhNVm26g
>>> =Yn5O
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
>



-- 
Cédric Villemain               2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

  14. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> — 2011-01-26T04:53:10Z

    On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:10, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
> array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
> can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
> array_get_slice, because there is high overhead of array_seek
> function. I redesigned the initial part of main cycle, but code is
> little bit longer :(, but I hope, it is more readable.

The attached patch only includes changes in plpgsql. I tested it
combined with the previous one, that includes other directories.

* src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y
| for_variable K_SLICE ICONST
The parameter for SLICE must be an integer literal. Is it a design?
I got a syntax error when I wrote a function like below. However,
FOREACH returns different types on SLICE = 0 or SLICE >= 1.
(element type for 0, or array type for >=1)  So, we cannot write
a true generic function that accepts all SLICE values even if
the syntax supports an expr for the parameter.

CREATE FUNCTION foreach_test(int[], int) RETURNS SETOF int[] AS
$$
DECLARE
  a integer[];
BEGIN
  FOREACH a SLICE $2 IN $1 LOOP -- syntax error
    RETURN NEXT a;
  END LOOP;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;

* /doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml
+ FOREACH <replaceable>target</replaceable> <optional> SCALE
s/SCALE/SLICE/ ?

* Why do you use "foreach_a" for some identifiers?
We use "foreach" only for arrays, so "_a" suffix doesn't seem needed.

* accumArrayResult() for SLICE has a bit overhead.
If we want to optimize it, we could use memcpy() because slices are
placed in continuous memory. But I'm not sure the worth; I guess
FOREACH will be used with SLICE = 0 in many cases.

-- 
Itagaki Takahiro

  15. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-26T07:09:47Z

    2011/1/26 Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:10, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> we have to iterate over array's items because it allow seq. access to
>> array's data. I need a global index for function "array_get_isnull". I
>> can't to use a buildin functions like array_slize_size or
>> array_get_slice, because there is high overhead of array_seek
>> function. I redesigned the initial part of main cycle, but code is
>> little bit longer :(, but I hope, it is more readable.
>
> The attached patch only includes changes in plpgsql. I tested it
> combined with the previous one, that includes other directories.
>
> * src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y
> | for_variable K_SLICE ICONST
> The parameter for SLICE must be an integer literal. Is it a design?
> I got a syntax error when I wrote a function like below. However,
> FOREACH returns different types on SLICE = 0 or SLICE >= 1.
> (element type for 0, or array type for >=1)  So, we cannot write
> a true generic function that accepts all SLICE values even if
> the syntax supports an expr for the parameter.

Yes, it is design. You wrote a reason. A parametrized SLICE needs only
a few lines more, but a) I really don't know a use case, b) there is
significant difference between slice 0 and slice 1

>
> CREATE FUNCTION foreach_test(int[], int) RETURNS SETOF int[] AS
> $$
> DECLARE
>  a integer[];
> BEGIN
>  FOREACH a SLICE $2 IN $1 LOOP -- syntax error
>    RETURN NEXT a;
>  END LOOP;
> END;
> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
>
> * /doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.sgml
> + FOREACH <replaceable>target</replaceable> <optional> SCALE
> s/SCALE/SLICE/ ?
>
> * Why do you use "foreach_a" for some identifiers?
> We use "foreach" only for arrays, so "_a" suffix doesn't seem needed.

yes, it isn't needed. But FOREACH is a new construct, that can be used
for more different iterations - maybe iterations over hstore,
element's set, ...

so _a means - this is implementation for arrays.



>
> * accumArrayResult() for SLICE has a bit overhead.
> If we want to optimize it, we could use memcpy() because slices are
> placed in continuous memory. But I'm not sure the worth; I guess
> FOREACH will be used with SLICE = 0 in many cases.
>

I agree with you, so SLICE > 0 will not be used often.

accumArrayResult isn't expensive function - for non varlena types. The
cutting of some array needs a redundant code to CopyArrayEls and
construct_md_array. All core functions are not good for our purpose,
because doesn't expect a seq array reading :(. Next - simply copy can
be done only for arrays without null bitmap, else you have to do some
bitmap rotations :(. So, I don't would do this optimization in this
moment. It has sense for multidimensional numeric arrays, but can be
solved in next version. It's last commitfest now, and I don't do this
patch more complex then it is now.

Regards

Pavel Stehule


> --
> Itagaki Takahiro
>

  16. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> — 2011-01-26T09:13:51Z

    On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
>
> I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,

AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
  FOR var IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,5] LOOP ...
And it was the only drawback compared with FOREACH var IN expr.

-- 
Itagaki Takahiro

  17. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-29T11:50:07Z

    * Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
> >
> > I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
> 
> AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
>   FOR var IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,5] LOOP ...

I don't really see why that's "not good"?  So you have 'ARRAY' twice..
So what?  That's better than having a new top-level FOREACH that doesn't
have any reason to exist except to be different from FOR and to not do
the same thing..

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  18. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-29T11:57:16Z

    * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> FOR keyword - please, look on thread about my proposal FOR-IN-ARRAY

I did, and I still don't agree w/ using FOREACH.

> I work with FOUND variable, because I like a consistent behave with
> FOR statement. When FOUND is true after cycle, you are sure, so there
> was a minimally one iteration.

Then the documentation around FOUND needs to be updated for FOREACH, and
there's probably other places that need to be changed too.

> > There also appears to be some extra whitespace changes that aren't
> > necessary and a number of places where you don't follow the indentation
> > conventions (eg: variable definitions in exec_stmt_foreach_a()).
> 
> I am really not sure about correct indentation of variables :(, if you
> know a correct number of spaces, please, fix it.

It's not a matter of a 'correct number of space'- make it the same as
what it is in the rest of the code...  The gist of it is to make the
variable names all line up (with maximum use of tabs at 4-spaces per
tab, of course):

int         my_var;
char       *my_string;
double      my_double;

etc, etc.

> I'll try to redesign main cycle.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  19. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-29T11:58:45Z

    2011/1/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> * Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 13:05, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> > FOR var in ARRAY array_expression ...
>> >
>> > I like that a lot more than inventing a new top-level keyword,
>>
>> AFAIR, the syntax is not good at an array literal.
>>   FOR var IN ARRAY ARRAY[1,2,5] LOOP ...
>
> I don't really see why that's "not good"?  So you have 'ARRAY' twice..
> So what?  That's better than having a new top-level FOREACH that doesn't
> have any reason to exist except to be different from FOR and to not do
> the same thing..

I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
PL/SQL. My idea is so FOR stmt will be a compatible with PL/SQL
original, and FOREACH can be a platform for PostgreSQL specific code.

Regards

Pavel

>
>        Thanks,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk1D/u8ACgkQrzgMPqB3kij2IwCfZ3W+mGc7LedBdnt9lCa0vYjk
> m6QAn0xh7r6oTs+T47k+EuwZRpU2T0X8
> =ruBa
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

  20. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-29T12:07:32Z

    >
>> I'll try to redesign main cycle.
>
>        Thanks,
>

please, can you look on code that I sent last time?

Pavel

>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEUEARECAAYFAk1EAJwACgkQrzgMPqB3kig5bACdH0fm8Klh7Dq1GlICV/Z8yEd4
> KQoAlRZEeTrBkKK6TwjZrKmFDDeRfKE=
> =JPG4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

  21. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-29T12:12:44Z

    * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
> syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
> stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
> PL/SQL. My idea is so FOR stmt will be a compatible with PL/SQL
> original, and FOREACH can be a platform for PostgreSQL specific code.

I see that as an absolutely horrible idea.  If you want that, it should
be "PGFOR" or something, but I don't buy off on the idea that we should
invent new top-level PG-specific keywords for PL/PgSQL because they're
PG-specific.  I also don't see why FOR wouldn't still be as compatible
w/ PL/SQL as it was before (except in the possible case where someone
actually has 'ARRAY' there already, but I'm pretty sure we can convince
ourselves that such a construct is very unlikely to appear in the wild).

I certainly don't think we should *not* do something under FOR because
we're worried that people might use it and then get unhappy when they
port that code to PL/SQL.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  22. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-29T13:02:58Z

    * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> please, can you look on code that I sent last time?

I'm looking at it now and I still don't like the big set of conditionals
at the beginning which sets things up.  I do think the loop is a bit
better, but have you considered factoring out the array slicing..?  If
the built-ins don't give you what you want, write your own?  Or make
them do what you need?

Point is, that array-slicing logic has a very clear and defined purpose,
input and output, and it could be another function.

Err, oh, except you have this horribly named 'ptr' variable that's
being used across the loops.  Gah.  Alright, I'd suggest actually making
an array iterator function then, which can single-step and pull out
slices, along with a single-step iterator, and then changing the top
level to be a while() loop on that.  Notionally it's like this:

while (curr_slice_ptr =
	array_slice(arr, curr_slice_ptr, slice_len, &slice, &isnull))
{
	exec_assign_value(estate, ctrl_var, slice, valtype, &isnull);
	rc = exec_stmts(estate, stmt->body);
	/* handle return codes */
}

array_slice() could be defined to return a single value if slice_len is
1, or you could just pull out the single element if it returned a
1-element array; either way would work, imv, so long as it's commented
appropriately.

Those are my thoughts at the moment.  To be honest, I'd really like to
see this patch included in 9.1, since I can see myself using this
feature, so if you need help with some of this rework, let me know.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  23. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-29T13:05:27Z

    2011/1/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this
>> syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR
>> stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with
>> PL/SQL. My idea is so FOR stmt will be a compatible with PL/SQL
>> original, and FOREACH can be a platform for PostgreSQL specific code.
>
> I see that as an absolutely horrible idea.  If you want that, it should
> be "PGFOR" or something, but I don't buy off on the idea that we should
> invent new top-level PG-specific keywords for PL/PgSQL because they're
> PG-specific.  I also don't see why FOR wouldn't still be as compatible
> w/ PL/SQL as it was before (except in the possible case where someone
> actually has 'ARRAY' there already, but I'm pretty sure we can convince
> ourselves that such a construct is very unlikely to appear in the wild).

you can rename it as some different than original ADA concept, if you
like. It is similar like FORALL cycle from PL/SQL. Native ADA's FOR
cycle doesn't know iteration over array.

You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
possibility for enhancing plpgsql in future.

>
> I certainly don't think we should *not* do something under FOR because
> we're worried that people might use it and then get unhappy when they
> port that code to PL/SQL.

PL/pgSQL is some like Frankenstein :) Fast, functional but sometime
strange - more stranger than origin. I don't think so it necessary to
do live harder for people who have to work with both databases.

the main issue was a maintainability of more complex FOR statement.

Pavel

>
>        Thanks,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk1EBDwACgkQrzgMPqB3kijDLQCcCpb15jTvU3rIdh5j9ipaqq+X
> G+wAn2WrxDkgArf5xHxt4bi8EpE0HVFP
> =Fx/8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

  24. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-29T13:09:33Z

    * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
> possibility for enhancing plpgsql in future.

I look forward to hearing from the silent majority on this then.

> the main issue was a maintainability of more complex FOR statement.

That would be a reason to not have this functionality at all, not a
reason to add confusion with a new top-level command.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

  25. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2011-01-29T18:24:16Z

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> You have a similar opinion like me about design this statement. But
>> there are others with strong negative opinion. For someone ARRAY ARRAY
>> should be a problem. So FOREACH is third way - more, it increase a
>> possibility for enhancing plpgsql in future.

> I look forward to hearing from the silent majority on this then.

Well, I haven't been exactly silent, but I was one of the people telling
Pavel not to use FOR in the first place.  The trouble is that we've
already overloaded FOR to within an inch of its life.  Adding yet
another potential syntax to follow FOR ... IN ... is just a bad idea,
especially since Pavel has evidently got ambitions to add yet more
nonstandard hac^H^H^Hfeatures here.

I have to agree that FOREACH is pretty ugly too, but I do *not* want to
use a syntax that can so easily be confused with the existing types of
for-loops.  We'd pay a significant price in the ability to issue syntax
error messages that were actually relevant to what the user thought he
was doing, for example.

See also
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
FOREACH does.

			regards, tom lane

  26. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> — 2011-01-29T19:03:45Z

    * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> See also
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
> which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
> FOREACH does.

Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post previously.  I think I
can get behind the idea of FOREACH being used for 'vertical'
(multi-value in a single value) loops while FOR is used for 'horizontal'
(multi-row).  This patch certainly needs to be improved to document
this, in the grammar, in the code via comments, and in the actual
documentation.  It also needs to touch any place that talks about the
other kinds of loops to be sure that FOREACH is included and that it's
behavior is documented accordingly.

	Thanks again,

		Stephen

  27. Re: REVIEW: WIP: plpgsql - foreach in

    Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> — 2011-01-29T19:08:07Z

    2011/1/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> See also
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php
>> which tries to draw a clear distinction between what FOR does and what
>> FOREACH does.
>
> Thanks for that, somehow I had missed that post previously.  I think I
> can get behind the idea of FOREACH being used for 'vertical'
> (multi-value in a single value) loops while FOR is used for 'horizontal'
> (multi-row).  This patch certainly needs to be improved to document
> this, in the grammar, in the code via comments, and in the actual
> documentation.  It also needs to touch any place that talks about the
> other kinds of loops to be sure that FOREACH is included and that it's
> behavior is documented accordingly.

Stephen, please, update documentation freely. Current documentation is
really minimal.

Regards

Pavel

>
>        Thanks again,
>
>                Stephen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk1EZJEACgkQrzgMPqB3kijrawCfbvtV/2QoJ6nLvKZENcslQgz+
> do8An2Q7MvgubhLqrfbVCMiG29+RG3cp
> =RpHJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>