From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? |
Date: | 2009-11-06 22:01:55 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070911061401g9650b1cs7bf345f7ccb78edc@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I believe we had consensus that plpgsql should offer the following three
> behaviors when a name in a SQL query could refer to either a plpgsql
> variable or a column from a table of the query:
> * prefer the plpgsql variable (plpgsql's historical behavior)
> * prefer the table column (Oracle-compatible)
> * throw error for the ambiguity (to become the factory default)
> and that we wanted a way for users to select one of these behaviors at the
> per-function level, plus provide a SUSET GUC to determine the default
> behavior when there is not a specification in the function text.
>
> What we did not have was any concrete suggestions for the name or
> values of the GUC, nor for the exact per-function syntax beyond the
> thought that it could look something like the existing '#option dump'
> modifier.
>
> The code is now there and ready to go, so I need a decision on these
> user-visible names in order to proceed. Anyone have ideas?
I wonder if the word "scoping" might be useful here.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-06 23:03:35 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-11-06 21:57:10 | Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? |