On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Right, that was my impression, too. But, I think this may be partly a >> case of people talking past each other. My impression of this >> conversation was a repetition of this sequence: > >> A: This syntax is bad. >> B: But it's way faster! > >> ...which makes no sense. However, what I now think is going on here >> is that there are really two separate things that are wished for here >> - a more compact syntax, and a performance improvement. And taken >> separately, I agree with both of those desires. PL/pgsql is an >> incredibly clunky language syntactically, and it's also slow. A patch >> that improves either one of those things has value, whether or not it >> also does the other one. > > I understand the desire for nicer syntax, in the abstract. I'm just > unimpressed by this particular change, mainly because I'm afraid that > it will make syntax-error behaviors worse and foreclose future options > for other changes to FOR. If it were necessary to change the syntax > to get the performance benefit, I might think that on balance we should > do so; but it isn't.
It'd be nicer syntax if there were some way to have the keyword not adjacent to the arbitrary expression. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
