Re: updated patch for foreach stmt
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>
Date: 2011-02-16T01:59:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: >>> Alright, so, like I said, I really like this feature and would like to >>> see it included. > >> Amen to that! > >> I think the syntax Tom suggested before was FOREACH thingy IN ARRAY >> arr rather than just FOREACH thingy IN arr. > > Actually, I'm on record as saying the opposite: we shouldn't need to > distinguish the exact data type at the syntax level, so long as the > FOREACH construct is understood to mean "iterate through the members of > the composite object produced by this expression": > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01579.php > > I am not, however, wedded to that position --- if people are happier > with explicit use of ARRAY here, I won't fight hard to get rid of it. > > Anyway I'm going to start on this patch next, so last chance for > opinions about the syntax ... Oh, I was looking at this one: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01557.php Anyhoo, forcing the explicit ARRAY keyword in there seems like pretty cheap future-proofing to me. YMMV. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company