2010/9/28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2010/9/28 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> Yes, there is. The syntax you propose is flat out ambiguous: there are >>> two possible legal interpretations of some commands. > >> what are you thinking? The subquery cannot be interpreted different. > > Sure it can: it could be a parenthesized top-level query. In fact, > that's what plpgsql will assume if you feed it that syntax today.
no - there are not any legal construct FOR r IN (..) I believe so we can find more than one similar undocumented features, like this - so it means so plpgsql will be a buggy? > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
