From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ? |
Date: | 2012-05-03 14:50:47 |
Message-ID: | 23392.1336056647@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2012/5/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> This notion of "anytypename" is utterly unworkable anyway; there's no
>> way for the parser to know soon enough that a given argument position
>> needs to be read as a type name rather than a normal expression.
> type identifier is same identifier like other - but I have no
> prototype now, so I don't know if there is some trap
No, it isn't, at least not if you have any ambition to support array
types for instance; to say nothing of types whose standard names are
keywords, multiple words, etc. Even if you were willing to restrict the
feature to only work for simple-identifier type names, the parser would
have thrown an error for failing to find a column by that name, or else
would have misinterpreted the type name as a column name, long before
there is any opportunity to recognize that the argument position is
an "anytypename" argument.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 14:53:32 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-03 14:49:41 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |