Re: improve FOUND in PL/PgSQL

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Neil Conway <nconway@klamath.dyndns.org> writes:
> >       <para>
> > !      There is a special variable named <literal>FOUND</literal> of
> > !      type <type>boolean</type>. It will be set to true if:
> > !      <itemizedlist>
> > !       <listitem>
> > !        <para>
> > !         A SELECT INTO statement is executed, and it returns one or
> > !         more rows.
> > !        </para>
> >           ... etc ...
>
> This is better than what we had, but still seems confusing

[...]

Ok, I made this part of the documentation more clear.

> Also the initial state of FOUND should be documented (or is that in the
> other patch?)

Nope, I forgot about that. For the moment, I've documented that the
initial state of FOUND is false -- if we want to change that to be
NULL (to match Oracle's behavior), it can be done later.

> > Unfortunately, the code is a bit less elegant than I'd like.
>
> Indeed.  I don't like duplicating the loop condition test, and really
> the behavior is still wrong: IMHO the FOR statements should not touch
> FOUND at all before entering the loop.  I think you could do this
> much more cleanly by introducing a local boolean:

Ah, ok -- thanks for the suggestion. It required a fair amount of
work, since I had to refactor a lot of the logic in the 3 functions
that handle PL/PgSQL FOR loops.

A revised patch is attached.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC