Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch
Date: 2010-08-06 17:52:08
Message-ID: AANLkTimnc55xs-fAK2gBH3C=2tbGXRMK0jhBS3KCZ67F@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'll propose a new kind of functions (only position parameter's
> function). My idea is simple - for functions with this mark the mixed
> and named notation is blocked. But these functions can have a
> parameter names - and these names can be passed to function. So there
> is possible have a
>
> xslt_process function with current behave - third argument has not
> label, and new variadic version like
>
> xslt_process(..,.., param_name1 = 'v1', param_name2 = 'v2',
> param_name3 = 'v3', ...)
>
> an implementation of this functionality can be very simple, and we can
> use this for xslt_process in 9.1

Why wouldn't we just pass two text arrays to this function and be done
with it? Custom syntax is all well and good when you're writing these
calls by hand, but it's not hard to imagine someone wanting to pass in
values stored somewhere else.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-06 17:56:42 Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch
Previous Message Andres Freund 2010-08-06 17:50:56 Cost of AtEOXact_Buffers in --enable-cassert