| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 16:27:21 |
| Message-ID: | B8F81D63-BBE6-4D7A-8256-E248E842AFF7@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 19, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think warnings are too easy to miss, but I agree your other
> suggestion. I know you can write function_name.variable_name, but
> that's often massively long-winded. We either need a short, fixed
> prefix, or some kind of sigil. I previously suggested ? to parallel
> ECPG, but Tom didn't like it. I still do. :-)
I suppose that $ would interfere with dollar quoting. What about @ or
@@ (sorry, I did mess with MSSQL back in the 90s).
Hrm…PostgreSQL is starting to have the same problem as Perl: running
out of characters because they're used for operators. :var would be
perfect, if it wasn't for psql. ?var is okay, I guess, if a bit…
questionable. Are {braces} used for anything?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-10-19 16:29:16 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-10-19 16:25:02 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |