* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > I don't see a problem too, but we didn't find a compromise with this > syntax, so I left it. It is true, so current implementation of FOR > stmt is really baroque and next argument is a compatibility with > PL/SQL. My idea is so FOR stmt will be a compatible with PL/SQL > original, and FOREACH can be a platform for PostgreSQL specific code.
I see that as an absolutely horrible idea. If you want that, it should
be "PGFOR" or something, but I don't buy off on the idea that we should
invent new top-level PG-specific keywords for PL/PgSQL because they're
PG-specific. I also don't see why FOR wouldn't still be as compatible
w/ PL/SQL as it was before (except in the possible case where someone
actually has 'ARRAY' there already, but I'm pretty sure we can convince
ourselves that such a construct is very unlikely to appear in the wild).
I certainly don't think we should *not* do something under FOR because
we're worried that people might use it and then get unhappy when they
port that code to PL/SQL.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
