On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > Tom Lane-2 wrote > >> At the very least I think we should stay away from this syntax until > >> the SQL committee understand it better than they evidently do today. > >> I don't want to implement it and then get caught by a future > >> clarification that resolves the issue differently than we did. > > > Its not quite as unclear as you make it out to be: > > Yes it is. > > Not withstanding the decision making of the SQL committee I was rejecting as inconsistent: SET random_1 = 0; SET random_2 = 0; SET random_3 = random(1234); The ambiguity regarding re-execute or copy still remains. > That's not the reading I want, and it's not the reading you want either, > but there is nothing in the existing text that justifies single > evaluation. So I think we'd be well advised to sit on our hands until > the committee clarifies that. It's not like there is some urgent reason > to have this feature. > > > Agreed. I don't suppose there is any support or prohibition on the : one,two,three integer := generate_series(1,3); interpretation...not that I can actually come up with a good use case that wouldn't be better implemented via a loop in the main body. David J.
