Re: plpgsql FOR loop doesn't guard against strange step values

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I suspect we have a significant incompatibility with PLSQL in this area. 

Ugh.  Google seems to confirm your thought that Oracle expects

>   FOR i IN REVERSE 1..10 LOOP

which is not the way we are doing it.  Not sure if it's worth trying to
fix this --- the conversion pain would be significant.  I agree we gotta
document it, however; will go do so.

Note that in the Oracle worldview it still wouldn't be sensible to use
a negative step.
        regards, tom lane