| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Matthew Draper <matthew(at)trebex(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name |
| Date: | 2011-03-27 16:52:03 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinYbEbA7gtxzOykeeK_-4dpxGBbQ8kK1J2i3bJM@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/3/27 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>
>
> On 03/27/2011 09:42 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:12:33PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is
>>> that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad
>>> idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo or ${foo} or $.foo
>>> or&&foo!!$#? to mean "the parameter called foo", then this would all
>>> be a non-issue.
>>
>> How about psql's :foo syntax?
>>
>>
>
> Surely the time has long gone when we could have made such a choice. And the
> choice was not made in a vacuum.
>
Syntax for named parameters should be consistent with prepared
statement. Is there any comments in standard?
Regards
Pavel
SQL/PSM doesn't use any prefix - but it is little bit different
chapter then prepared statements.
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | SUBHAM ROY | 2011-03-27 17:01:48 | Re: Needs Suggestion |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-27 16:51:13 | pgsql: Fix plpgsql to release SPI plans when a function or DO block is |