On Nov 9, 2007 6:07 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword
> >> and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-ho
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ thinks for a bit... ] It might be possible to get rid of the keyword
>> and have RETURN QUERY be recognized by an ad-hoc strcmp test, much like
>> the various direction keywords in FETCH
On Nov 9, 2007 5:14 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Todd A. Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I saw the item in the release notes about the new "return query"
> > syntax in pl/pgsql, but I didn't see any note about "query" being
> > reserved now. Perhaps an explicit mention should b
"Todd A. Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I saw the item in the release notes about the new "return query"
> syntax in pl/pgsql, but I didn't see any note about "query" being
> reserved now. Perhaps an explicit mention should be added?
Yeah, I got burnt by that too. I have a bad feeling that
