2010/7/4 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> my syntax is reflecting fact, so these are not true parameters - it's >> +/- similar to default values of function parameters. > > FWIW, that doesn't seem like a positive to me. > >> You cannot to >> write do (a int := $1) $$ ... $$ - because utils statements hasn't >> have variables. > > Yet. I don't particularly want to relax that either, but the syntax of > this feature shouldn't assume it'll be true forever. > > I think it's better to not confuse these things with default parameters, > so Florian's idea looks better to me. > > BTW, we intentionally didn't put any provision for parameters into DO > originally. What's changed to alter that decision? > > regards, tom lane >
It just concept - nothing more. And my instinct speak so inline code block without external parametrization is useless. Regards Pavel Stehule -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
