On 27/03/18 03:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I think this is an actively bad idea. It introduces an inherent ambiguity
into the grammar; for instance
PERFORM (2);
now has two valid interpretations. The only way to resolve that is with
heu
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> 2018-03-01 5:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut >> This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw
>>> it out here for discussion. Apparently, in PL/SQL you can call another
>>> procedure without the C
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2018-03-01 5:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut > This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw
>> it out here for discussion. Apparently, in PL/SQL you can call another
>> procedure without the CALL keyword. Here is a patch that attempts to
>> imple
2018-03-01 5:51 GMT+01:00 Peter Eisentraut :
> This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw
> it out here for discussion. Apparently, in PL/SQL you can call another
> procedure without the CALL keyword. Here is a patch that attempts to
> implement that in PL/pgSQL as
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>
> I seem to recall that there were past discussions about this, with
> respect to the PERFORM command, but I couldn't find them anymore.
>
I'm thinking you are thinking of this one.
https://www.postgr
This seems to be a popular issue when porting from PL/SQL, so I'll throw
it out here for discussion. Apparently, in PL/SQL you can call another
procedure without the CALL keyword. Here is a patch that attempts to
implement that in PL/pgSQL as well. It's not very pretty.
I seem to recall that th
