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>: >>> 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 (..) > > You are simply wrong, sir, and I suggest that you go read the SQL > standard until you realize that. Consider for example > > for r in (SELECT ... FROM a UNION SELECT ... FROM b) INTERSECT (SELECT > ... FROM c) LOOP ... > > The parentheses here are not merely legal, they are *necessary*, else > the semantics of the UNION/INTERSECT operations change. >
ok, then probably one variant is for-in-array array_expr. Is there agreement? Regards Pavel Stehule > 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
