On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On lör, 2009-08-15 at 23:31 +0100, Sam Mason wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >> > Nitpicking dept, I think I prefer: >> > >> > DO [ [LANGUAGE] language] $$ ... $$; >> > DO plperl $$ ... $$; >> > DO language plpython $$ ... $$; >> > >> > language is optional and defaults to plpgsql. >> >> Yup, sounds nicer. The less globals the better! >> >> Next all you need is to be able to PREPARE them (and somehow access the >> parameters from execute) and you'll have nice local functions. :) > > Yeah, rather than just making up some new command for "execute this > string", this could be generalized as lambda expressions that could be > called whereever an expression is allowed. E.g. > > SELECT LAMBDA $$ ... $$; > > -- if CALL is implemented > CALL LAMBDA $$ ... $$; > > PREPARE foo AS SELECT LAMBDA $$ ... $$; > EXECUTE foo; > > SELECT (LAMBDA (x int, y text) $$ ... $$) (37, 'foo');
I like this idea (although it might not be too easy to implement, not sure), but I think we could still use DO (which is shorter) for the verb. Lambda-calculus is cool, but "do" is nice and simple. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
