Tom,
> Jan might remember more about his thought process here, but I'm thinking
> that he copied the SELECT-must-have-INTO rule and then chose to invent
> a new statement for the case of wanting to discard the result. I think
> you could make an argument for that being good from an oversight-detection
> standpoint, but it's not a really strong argument. Particularly in view
> of the difficulty we'd have in supporting WITH ... PERFORM ... nicely,
> it doesn't seem unreasonable to just allow SELECT-without-INTO.
For my own part, I have to correct forgetting to substitute "PERORM" for
"SELECT" around 200 times each major PL/pgSQL project. So it would be
user-friendly for it to go away.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com