From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers |
Date: | 2002-01-23 15:06:19 |
Message-ID: | 2521.1011798379@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> What I do not like at all is the notion that "table" == "table".* .
> (IIRC there has already been some discussion where I objected to that.)
> "table" as function parameter imho passes an object of type "table"
> to the function. This involves type checking, and that the function only
> has one argument.
> "table".* to the contrary is not an object, but one object (one parameter)
> per table column. This is imho easier to understand, since select table.*
> also does it like that. Thus calling func(table.*) should imho rather be
> mapped to func (table.col1, table.col2 ...).
Okay, but then how will you refer unambiguously to the rowtype object?
If you write func(schema.tab) the system will misinterpret it as
func(tab.col) --- which, in the worst case, might fail to fail because
there actually is such a column. We have to make some compromises here.
I'm not all that thrilled with foo.* for rowtype either, but you haven't
offered a workable alternative.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ned Wolpert | 2002-01-23 15:26:47 | Re: Auditing and Postgres 7.3 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-23 14:59:39 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |