On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> >>> wrote: >>>> i will start the review of this one... but before that sorry for >>>> suggesting this a bit later but about using UNNEST as part of the >>>> sintax? >> >>> Does for-in-array do what unnset does? >> >> Yes, which begs the question of why bother at all. AFAICS this patch >> simply allows you to replace >> >> for x in select unnest(array_value) loop >> >> with >> >> for x in unnest array_value loop >> >> (plus or minus a parenthesis or so). I do not think we need to add a >> bunch of code and create even more syntactic ambiguity (FOR loops are >> already on the hairy edge of unparsability) to save people from writing >> "select". > > Pavel's performance argument is imnsho valid. arrays at present are > the best way to pass data around functions and any optimizations here > are very welcome. Given that, is there any way to mitigate your > concerns on the syntax side?
Can we get the performance benefit any other way? I hate to think that it will still be slow for people using the already-supported syntax. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
