Re: named parameters in SQL functions

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> At Tom's suggestion I am looking at allowing use of parameter names in SQL
> functions instead of requiring use of $1 etc. That raises the question of
> how we would disambiguate a parameter name from a column name. Essentially,
> ISTM, we could use some special marker such as @ (c.f. SQL Server) or :
> (c.f. ecpg) or else we could have some rule that says which name takes
> precedence. I think I prefer a special marker, other things being equal. Is
> there a standard on this?

We could also just throw an error if there is any ambiguity. I kind
of like the idea of a special marker for both SQL and PL/pgsql, but
Tom has been negative on that idea in the past.

...Robert