Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql execute vs. SELECT ... INTO

Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > On 11/05/2010 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > >> The comment on the commit says: > > >> EXECUTE of a SELECT ... INTO now draws a 'not implemented' error, > > >> rather than executing the INTO clause wit

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql execute vs. SELECT ... INTO

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 11/05/2010 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan writes: > >> The comment on the commit says: > >> EXECUTE of a SELECT ... INTO now draws a 'not implemented' error, > >> rather than executing the INTO clause with non-plpgsql semantics > >> as

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql execute vs. SELECT ... INTO

On 11/05/2010 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: The comment on the commit says: EXECUTE of a SELECT ... INTO now draws a 'not implemented' error, rather than executing the INTO clause with non-plpgsql semantics as it was doing for the last few weeks/months. This

Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql execute vs. SELECT ... INTO

Andrew Dunstan writes: > The comment on the commit says: > EXECUTE of a SELECT ... INTO now draws a 'not implemented' error, > rather than executing the INTO clause with non-plpgsql semantics > as it was doing for the last few weeks/months. This keeps our options > open for makin

[HACKERS] plpgsql execute vs. SELECT ... INTO

(Prompted by a puzzled user on IRC) Ten years ago, nearly, we made this commit (see what a good thing it is we carefully got all the history transferred to git?) The comment on the commit says: EXECUT