Message-ID: <54BD3AA3.1020107@joh.to>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:10:59 +0100
From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: PG Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL: stmt_fors and variable value after loop
References: <54BD24C1.4060601@joh.to> <26441.1421682246@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <54BD2E05.2090004@joh.to>
In-Reply-To: <54BD2E05.2090004@joh.to>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

FWIW, I went with this method:

On 1/19/15 5:17 PM, I wrote:
>     3) Use a count(*) OVER () inside the query and EXIT if that count is 1


I guess defining this behavior wouldn't be such a big win, since the 
approach I showed would only work if the loop body keeps a count of the 
number of iterations somewhere; FOR doesn't appear to be setting 
row_count.  I'm having a hard time imagining actual use cases where the 
count doesn't matter but you'd like to look at the last values anyway.

If you think there's any chance that this would prevent us from changing 
the implementation for the better in the future, I think we should just 
drop this issue.


.marko


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