From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql |
Date: | 2008-07-18 14:55:13 |
Message-ID: | 21851.1216392913@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/18/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 1. It's ludicrous to argue that "standards compliance" requires the
>> behavior-as-submitted. plpgsql is not specified by the SQL standard.
> Yes, but it would be a good feature addition to plpgsql.
> Currently there is no way to suppress the local variable
> creation. The proposed behaviour would give that possibility.
Why would anyone consider that a "feature"?
>> 2. Not having the parameter names available means that you don't have
>> access to their types either, which is a big problem for polymorphic
>> functions.
> This does not make sense as Postgres does not support
> polymorphic table columns...
No, but it certainly supports polymorphic function output parameters,
and that's what these really are.
> I think thats the point - it should not be just syntactic sugar for
> OUT parameters, let it be different.
Why? All you're doing is proposing that we deliberately cripple
the semantics.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-07-18 14:56:09 | Re: [PATCHES] WITH RECUSIVE patches 0717 |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-07-18 14:53:56 | Re: [PATCH]-hash index improving |