Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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