From: | "Sergio A(dot) Kessler" <sergiokessler(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Specific names for plpgsql variable-resolution control options? |
Date: | 2009-11-07 17:29:54 |
Message-ID: | 49216030911070929v14bdd607gd7ea16b2ebbddd1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
hi tom, sorry for the out-of-the-blue email (I'm not on the list)...
On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe we had consensus that plpgsql should offer the following
> three
> behaviors when a name in a SQL query could refer to either a plpgsql
> variable or a column from a table of the query:
> * prefer the plpgsql variable (plpgsql's historical behavior)
> * prefer the table column (Oracle-compatible)
> * throw error for the ambiguity (to become the factory default)
> and that we wanted a way for users to select one of these behaviors
> at the
> per-function level, plus provide a SUSET GUC to determine the default
> behavior when there is not a specification in the function text.
>
> What we did not have was any concrete suggestions for the name or
> values of the GUC, nor for the exact per-function syntax beyond the
> thought that it could look something like the existing '#option dump'
> modifier.
>
> The code is now there and ready to go, so I need a decision on these
> user-visible names in order to proceed. Anyone have ideas?
is this become configurable somehow,
how would I know that my code work as expected when I distribute my code ?
one option is to put
foo_variable_conflict = error
throughout the code, which can be thousands of lines, which is not
nice just to be sure my code works as expected no matter what...
(setting a general GUC can interfere with another code, which presumes
different things)
and moreover, is a burden for postgresql that should be supporting
'foo_variable_conflict' in the foreseeable future...
IMO, postgres should stick with one option (+1 for error) and be done
with this, just one simple rule to rule them all...
and with this, there is no need to band-aid the code just in case...
regards,
/sergio
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-07 18:46:33 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2009-11-07 12:32:52 | Uninitialized Data in WAL records generated in heap_(insert|update|delete) |