From: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsql function parameters instead $ based names |
Date: | 2017-09-11 07:46:22 |
Message-ID: | CAM2+6=XX5Z=GFtqp8VBQVzGXexa47jFoC38QT4PJo=SLEZJ36A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Pavel,
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2017-09-08 9:36 GMT+02:00 Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>:
>
>> Hi Pavel,
>> I like the idea of using parameter name instead of $n symbols.
>>
>> However, I am slightly worried that, at execution time if we want to
>> know the parameter position in the actual function signature, then it
>> will become difficult to get that from the corresponding datum
>> variable. I don't have any use-case for that though. But apart from
>> this concern, idea looks good to me.
>>
>
> Understand - but it was reason why I implemented this function - when I
> have to search parameter name via offset, I cannot to use string searching.
> When you know the parameter name, you can use a string searching in text
> editor, in pager.
>
> It is better supported now, then current behave.
>
Make sense.
>
>
>>
>> BTW, instead of doing all these changes, I have done these changes this
>> way:
>>
>> - /* Build variable and add to datum list */
>> - argvariable = plpgsql_build_variable(buf, 0,
>> - argdtype, false);
>> + /*
>> + * Build variable and add to datum list. If there's a
>> name for
>> + * the argument, then use that else use $n name.
>> + */
>> + argvariable = plpgsql_build_variable((argnames &&
>> argnames[i][0] != '\0') ?
>> + argnames[i] : buf,
>> + 0, argdtype, false);
>>
>> This requires no new variable and thus no more changes elsewhere.
>>
>> Attached patch with these changes. Please have a look.
>>
>
> Looks great - I added check to NULL only
>
Looks good.
I have not made those changes in my earlier patch as I did not want to
update other code which is not touched by this patch.
Anyways, your changes related to NULL check seems reasonable.
However, in attached patch I have fixed indentation.
Passing it on to the committer.
Thanks
--
Jeevan Chalke
Principal Software Engineer, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
psql-named-arguments-03-jeevan.patch | text/x-patch | 2.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitriy Sarafannikov | 2017-09-11 07:57:43 | Re: Allow GiST opcalsses without compress\decompres functions |
Previous Message | Yuto Hayamizu | 2017-09-11 07:43:46 | [PATCH] Overestimated filter cost and its mitigation |