X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4969FA1B0
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:20 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 54941-05
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:15 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com
 [64.233.184.231])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548969F9AFD
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so889588wra
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun, 07 May 2006 16:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:x-virus-scanned;
	b=HPlrTUSkTgRAo3hafc3DWyDFHED84U64ah23WHUXzKkwyrXn3GDw5oueMRMNNIIA+c8iQAalkU6H7C14aU9m0b+67IV/Oy4iJLbTBA1YmVQCK1lS7UPGzqStXsdeA4SJX6mX3aXSAosoXBtqM6Byfg7ZvFKOnmRPR1QPNlcJETM=
Received: by 10.54.146.17 with SMTP id t17mr1625085wrd;
	Sun, 07 May 2006 16:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strongwill.g2ctech ( [201.22.40.161])
	by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 29sm2037495wrl.2006.05.07.16.46.12;
	Sun, 07 May 2006 16:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by strongwill.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9E822BB1;
	Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:08 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from strongwill.g2ctech ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (strongwill [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024) with LMTP
	id 25871-02-2; Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:08 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from jupiter.g2ctech (unknown [10.0.0.240])
	by strongwill.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEF022B50;
	Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:08 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by jupiter.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1E14D5AD;
	Sun,  7 May 2006 20:46:07 -0300 (BRT)
From: Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Creating nested functions with plpgsql
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:46:04 -0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
References: <200605021414.49661.jgodoy@gmail.com>
	<20060507233343.GC31301@surnet.cl>
In-Reply-To: <20060507233343.GC31301@surnet.cl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200605072046.05629.jgodoy@gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at g2ctech.com
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200605/81
X-Sequence-Number: 25112

Em Domingo 07 Maio 2006 20:33, Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
>
> We don't support nested functions at present, but you can create a
> separate function and invoke it as you would call any external function.

Yeah, I know it and that's how I use some things today, but even so, having 
nested functions help to write some kinds of code.

> This is arguably better, because you may then use inner_function in any
> "outer function", not just the current one.

It depends.  There are cases where it is better -- at least for legibility -- 
to have nested functions.  Having a procedural approach is not always the 
best algorithm, but, as I said, it solves almost all problems.


Thanks,
-- 
Jorge Godoy      <jgodoy@gmail.com>