From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name |
Date: | 2011-04-14 20:55:46 |
Message-ID: | 20402.1302814546@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Unless we make it so that no such version ever exists. Meaning that the
>> code works fine as is or using WHERE id = developer_lookup.id. AS id
>> can't ever be the parameter in this case, you're just fine.
>>
>> Bearing in mind that $1 etc shortcuts still are available, I don't
>> really see this qualification of parameter names with function names so
>> big a problem that we should find a way to avoid it and risk breaking
>> compatibility.
>>
>> Don't forget that any ambiguity here will mean *huge* migration costs.
> If I'm reading your email correctly, we're in agreement.
Hmm, what I read Dimitri to be proposing is that we *require* parameter
names to be qualified with the function name. I don't recall hearing
that before. It would solve the problem perhaps, but I think the moans
and groans will be numerous.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-14 21:07:20 | Re: Single client performance on trivial SELECTs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-14 20:46:03 | Re: Single client performance on trivial SELECTs |