From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |
Date: | 2009-11-16 03:04:11 |
Message-ID: | 29780.1258340651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well that is the tricky part, for sure. I would personally prefer
>> something like ${name} rather than a prefix, but I think you're likely
>> to veto that outright. So, anything reasonably short would be an
>> improvement over the status quo. self? this? my?
>>
> I think it would have to be a reserved word. The obvious existing
> keyword to use is "function" but unless I'm mistaken we'd need to move
> it from unreserved keyword to reserved, and I'm not sure this would
> justify that.
All of these are fundamentally illegal syntax, which as was already
pointed out up-thread is likely to introduce nasty side-effects of its
own. Not to mention being an order of magnitude harder to implement.
We have a hook to implement resolving a ColumnRef, ie a qualified
identifier. We don't have support for random other things.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-16 03:05:53 | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-16 03:00:27 | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |