On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:51:40AM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 8/27/14, 2:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >Does this make sense? In essence, make the relations work like > >PL/pgSQL variables do. If you squint a little, the new/old relation > >is a variable from the function's point of view, and a parameter > >from the planner/executor's point of view. It's just a > >variable/parameter that holds a set of tuples, instead of a single > >Datum. > > Something to keep in mind is that users will definitely think about > NEW/OLD as tables. I suspect that it won't be long after release > before someone asks why they can't create an index on it. :)
Continuing with this digression, that request seems more likely with views and foreign tables, given that they persist across statements. I'm given to understand that other systems have at least the former. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
