| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Out parameters handling |
| Date: | 2009-03-13 01:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | 49B9BD4D.6040407@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> How much of this pain would go away if we changed over to the arguably
>> correct (as in Or*cle does it that way) scoping for names, wherein the
>> parser first tries to match a name against column names of tables of the
>> current SQL statement, and only failing that looks to see if they are
>> plpgsql variables?
-1 on this. If we're to have definite rules, I would prefer that stuff
gets assumed to be a variable *first*, and then object definitions are
only examined after the system fails to find a matching variable name.
That priority makes it much easier to debug a function than the Oracle way.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2009-03-13 03:43:36 | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-03-13 01:39:54 | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |