"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I personally tend to believe it doesn't even need to be an error.
>> There is no technical reason not to allow it. All the user needs
>> to do is make sure that the combination of named parameters and
>> the positional ones together are complete and not overlapping.
>> This is also in line with calling functions, where mixing named
>> and positional is allowed, as long as the positional arguments
>> are first. Personally I have no opinion what is best, include the
>> feature or give an error, and I removed the possibility during
>> the previous commitfest.
>
> If there's no technical reason not to allow them to be mixed, I
> would tend to favor consistency with parameter calling rules.
> Doing otherwise seems like to result in confusion and "bug"
> reports.
Er, that was supposed to read "I would tend to favor consistency
with function calling rules." As stated here:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/interactive/sql-syntax-calling-funcs.html
| PostgreSQL also supports mixed notation, which combines positional
| and named notation. In this case, positional parameters are
| written first and named parameters appear after them.
> How do others feel?
If there are no objections, I suggest that Yeb implement the mixed
notation for cursor parameters.
-Kevin