2009/6/11 hubert depesz lubaczewski <dep...@depesz.com>: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 04:51:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's the new implementation. Depending on unspecified implementation >> details is a good way to have broken code. > > i'm not sure if it's good change. there might be perfectly good reasons > to increment idx from within loop. >
generally - modification of cycle's control variable isn't good technique, because it's should be broken by some optimizations. When you would to modify this some variables, then use "while-loop" instead. regards Pavel Stehule > Best regards, > > depesz > > -- > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/depesz / blog: http://www.depesz.com/ > jid/gtalk: dep...@depesz.com / aim:depeszhdl / skype:depesz_hdl / gg:6749007 > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
