On 11/19/2012 02:30:49 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello
>
> 2012/11/16 Karl O. Pinc <k...@meme.com>:
> > Hi Pavel,
> >
> > On 11/16/2012 12:21:11 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> 2012/11/16 Karl O. Pinc <k...@meme.com>:
> >
> >> > As long as I'm talking crazy talk, why not
> >> > abandon psql as a shell language and instead make a
> >> > pl/pgsql interpreter with readlne() in front
> >> > of it? Solve all these language-related
> >> > issues by using an actual programming language. :-)
> >
> >> I though about it more time, but I don't thinking so this has a
> >> sense.
> > You might consider using "do".
>
> it is reason, why I don't thinking about plpgsql on client side. But
> I
> don't understand how it is related to gset ?
Because the plpgsql SELECT INTO sets variables from query results,
exactly what \gset does. You have to use EXECUTE
in plpgsql to do the substitution into statements, but that's
syntax.
>
> I remember, there is one significant limit of DO statement - it
> cannot
> return table - so it cannot substitute psql simple scripts.
Yes. I'm wrong. For some reason I thought you could use DO to make
an anonymous code block that would act as a SETOF function,
allowing RETURN NEXT expr (et-al) to be used in the
plpgsql code, allowing DO to return table results.
(Or, perhaps, instead, be used in place of a table in a SELECT
statement.) Oh well.
Regards,
Karl <k...@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
