Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers

From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Schemas vs. PostQUEL: resolving qualified identifiers
Date: 2002-01-23 21:57:08
Message-ID: 3C4F31B4.C7C9B2D6@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Okay, but then how will you refer unambiguously to the rowtype object?
>
> > What about casting with the keyord ROW?
> > func(ROW table)
> > always refers to the row-type of table "table" even if there is
> > a column called "table".
>
> Strikes me as gratuituously different from the way everything else is
> done. We have .* and %ROWTYPE and so forth, and they're all suffixes.
> The closest analogy to your ROW syntax is CAST, but it doesn't alter the
> initial interpretation of its argument.
>

I didn't mean literally that way, I just wanted to add a keyword for
solving ambiguity (when there is one).

You are right, it should be:

func(table%ROWTYPE)

--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-01-23 22:02:46 Re: perl problems in RC1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-01-23 21:46:01 Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects