From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard |
Date: | 2008-09-02 15:02:24 |
Message-ID: | 162867790809020802m5f4c698ct7a281ea88b85d5ae@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/9/2 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2008/9/2 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> BTW, there are actually two separate issues here: input parameters and
>>> output parameters. After brief thought it seems like we should enforce
>>> uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names for IN parameters (including
>>> INOUT), and separately enforce uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names
>>> for OUT parameters (including INOUT).
>
>> It's well thought, but I afraid so this can hide some bug, and it's
>> little bit dangerous.
>
>> I thing, so we can simply duplicate values in result then allowing
>> duplicate params in function.
>
> Um ... what? I'm not sure what behavior you're proposing here.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
I am sorry - I really have to learn english. Simply I don't thing, so
duplicit OUT parameters is good idea, but I am haven't strong
objections - some programmer's bugs are visible in this case.
regards
Pavel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-02 15:07:52 | Re: Question regarding the database page layout. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-02 14:54:08 | Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard |