On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:57 AM, David Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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.
Based on these comments and the remarks by Alvaro and Andres, I think it's clear that we should reject this patch. The number of patches that get through with -1 votes from 3 committers is very small, if not zero. While I like the feature in the abstract, I agree with Tom that it would be better to wait until we have more clarity about what the semantics are supposed to be. I will update the CommitFest app accordingly. -- 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