Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Funny. That's a good argument for doing it that way, but almost the same
> > argument I make for putting the INTO at the end: so as to not confuse
> > people with the "SELECT a,b,c INTO newtable FROM oldtable" sql syntax.
> > In either
The reported correction was removing the superfluous full_name varchar (which
Neil Conway also reported a few days back). When i was rewriting the
function, I subconsciously switched the SELECT INTO statement to the (IMHO)
more legible syntax, though nothing was wrong with the previous version
Ummm - surely the original was correct?
Chris
Robert Treat wrote:
Marcos Truchado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> reported this on -docs yesterday.
Robert Treat
Index: plpgsql.sgml
===
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Funny. That's a good argument for doing it that way, but almost the same
> argument I make for putting the INTO at the end: so as to not confuse
> people with the "SELECT a,b,c INTO newtable FROM oldtable" sql syntax.
> In either case ISTM the existing rec
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 14:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > ! SELECT INTO users_rec * FROM users WHERE user_id=3;
> > > --- 986,993
> > > ! SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id=3 INTO users_rec;
> >
> > Why do you want to c
Sorry Neil. I thought I recalled you submitting a similar patch, but
must have missed it in the archives and didn't see the change reflected
in cvs so assmeme'd that your change was in a different place.. :-(
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 14:04, Neil Conway wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROT
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, that position is a strange choice. The standard syntax of SELECT
> INTO in embedded SQL is
> SELECT a, b, c INTO :x, :y, :z FROM ...
> This should probably be consistent.
Well, I'm not wedded to the current recommendation, but we'll never be
ab
Tom Lane writes:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ! SELECT INTO users_rec * FROM users WHERE user_id=3;
> > --- 986,993
> > ! SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id=3 INTO users_rec;
>
> Why do you want to change the example to disagree with the advice given
> just above?
>
>
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcos Truchado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> reported this on -docs
> yesterday.
I submitted a patch for this typo to -patches 5 days ago.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands g
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 11:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ! SELECT INTO users_rec * FROM users WHERE user_id=3;
> > --- 986,993
> > ! SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id=3 INTO users_rec;
>
> Why do you want to change the example to disagree with the ad
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ! SELECT INTO users_rec * FROM users WHERE user_id=3;
> --- 986,993
> ! SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id=3 INTO users_rec;
Why do you want to change the example to disagree with the advice given
just above?
: At present, the INTO clause can
Marcos Truchado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> reported this on -docs yesterday.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQLIndex: plpgsql.sgml
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/plpgsql.
12 matches
Mail list logo
