From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
Date: | 2009-09-16 21:44:58 |
Message-ID: | 4AB15C5A.4040305@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Michael,
>
>
>> Have an example at hand? I'd argue that in a case of a function of more
>> complexity from a code clarity standpoint you'd want to assign to a new
>> variable that describes what the new value reflects.
>>
>
> Depends on what programming language you're used to. For those of us
> who do a lot of pass-by-reference in our non-database code, reusing the
> IN variable is "natural". I know not being able to is a longstanding
> annoyance for me.
>
>
>
It's the pass by reference case that would be dangerous, in fact. The
fact that in C all function parameters are passed by value (unlike, say,
FORTRAN) is what makes it safe to modify them inside the function.
Anyway, debates about such thigs tend to get a bit religious. getting
more practical, I'm slightly inclined to say Steve Prentice has made a
good enough case for doing this.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-16 22:05:17 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-16 21:43:45 | Re: Feedback on getting rid of VACUUM FULL |