| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |
| Date: | 2009-11-16 02:52:54 |
| Message-ID: | 4B00BE86.8090607@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
>> (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something
>> that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.)
>>
>
> 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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-16 03:00:27 | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-16 02:41:02 | Re: named parameters in SQL functions |