2009/11/21 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: > > > Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> What do you thing about this proposal? >> >> >> > > I think it's premature. Before we start adding bells and whistles to the > feature, let's give it a turn in the field.
why? It thing so not. My opinion - it is incomplete. It has similar function like function without parameters now. It's good for some static task (single-use). But it isn't practical for using in shell scripts. Do you have a other mechanism for parametrisation? I would to use it from bash - and I need some mechanism for passing an parameter from command line to DO statement. I > > One possible problem: what type would these anonymous params be? (And, BTW, > don't kid yourself that there would not very soon be pressure to name them). > It is solved long time - without specification, any parameter is 'unknown text'. It is based on PQexecParam functionality. In this case, the situation is simpler - we know value - it same as EXECUTE statement in plpgsql - type is defined by call. So we knows params (it is supported by protocol), PL languages support params. So it needs only some relation. It's need a few lines more in executor (copy a four pointers and one int) and some in PL (local variable declaring and copy values) + 5 lines in gram.y Pavel p.s. Maybe it is premature - We had to live with EXECUTE (without USING clause) twelve years. But an life should be comfortable. I don't would to wait twelve years :) > cheers > > andrew > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers