Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > Explicit cursor can be declared as:
> >
> > DECLARE
> > ...
> > curname CURSOR [(argname type [, ...])]
> > IS <select_stmt>;
>
> In esql you would have FOR instead of IS.
>
> DECLARE curname CURSOR ... FOR ....
>
> Thus the question, where is the syntax from ?
From the worlds most expens\b\b\b\b\b\b - er - reliable commercial database system.
> There seems to be a standard for "the" SQL stored procedure language:
>
> "Persistent Stored Module definition of the ANSI SQL99 standard" (quote from DB/2)
> Anybody know this ?
The entire PL/pgSQL was written with some compatibility in mind. Otherwise FOR loops would look more like
[ <<label>> ] FOR <loop_name> AS [ EACH ROW OF ] [ CURSOR <cursor_name> FOR ]
<cursor_specification>DO <statements> END FOR;
The good thing is that we can have any number of loadable procedural languages. It's relatively easy to
change the PL/pgSQL parser and create some PL/SQL99 handler. As long as the symbols in the modules don't conflict,
I see no reason why we shouldn't.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com