From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>
cc: PG Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL: stmt_fors and variable value after loop
In-reply-to: <54BD2E05.2090004@joh.to>
References: <54BD24C1.4060601@joh.to> <26441.1421682246@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <54BD2E05.2090004@joh.to>
Comments: In-reply-to Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>
 message dated "Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:17:09 +0100"
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:24:04 -0500
Message-ID: <27460.1421684644@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> writes:
> On 1/19/15 4:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems to me that to do so would mostly be to encourage sloppy
>> programming practices, at the price of constraining future implementation
>> changes.  Can you give a compelling example of a non-kluge usage for
>> such an assumption?

> What I'm doing would look something like this:
> ...
> Available workarounds right now would be, as far as I can tell:

>    1) Have separate variables which I assign to inside the loop, and use 
> those in case the loop found exactly one row
>    2) Aggregate the (currency, balance) pairs into an array first, and 
> decide based on the array's cardinality what to do
>    3) Use a count(*) OVER () inside the query and EXIT if that count is 1
>    4) Extract the values back from the sole element in the 
> _AvailableAccounts array

> I don't particularly like any of those.

I would have said that (4) would be the natural thing.  What have you
got against it?

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs