Re: Is this really really as designed or defined in some standard

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(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: 2008-09-01 21:02:25
Message-ID: 17970.1220302945@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So, should this be fixed at calling / SQL side (by not allowing
> repeating argument names) or at pl side for each pl separately ?

I'm for fixing it just once, ie, in CREATE FUNCTION. I can't imagine
any scenario where it's a good idea to have duplicate function parameter
names.

However, since this is a behavioral change that could break code that
works now, I think it should be a HEAD-only change; no backpatch.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-09-01 21:50:29 Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest
Previous Message David Fetter 2008-09-01 20:39:03 Re: Window functions patch v04 for the September commit fest