| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |
| Date: | 2009-11-16 12:17:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1258373875.23638.3.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2009-11-15 at 12:37 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> At Tom's suggestion I am looking at allowing use of parameter names in
> SQL functions instead of requiring use of $1 etc. That raises the
> question of how we would disambiguate a parameter name from a column
> name. Essentially, ISTM, we could use some special marker such as @
> (c.f. SQL Server) or : (c.f. ecpg) or else we could have some rule that
> says which name takes precedence. I think I prefer a special marker,
> other things being equal. Is there a standard on this?
Yes, search the SQL standard for <SQL parameter reference>.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-11-16 12:19:53 | Re: ORDER BY vs. volatile functions |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2009-11-16 11:05:22 | ECPG patch 4, out-of-scope cursor support in Informix-mode |