čt 6. 1. 2022 v 20:03 odesílatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022, at 19:03, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > The possibility to define a label dynamically is a better solution (not > by some buildin keyword), > > because it allows some possibility for the end user to define what he > prefers. > > I'm trying to understand why you think a user-defined notation is > desirable, > why it wouldn't be better if the SQL standard would endorse a notation, > so we could all write code in the same way, avoiding ugly GUCs or PRAGMAs > altogether? > But there is nothing similar in standard. Standard doesn't specify any column or table or label names in the custom area. The ADA language, an PL/SQL origin, and the PL/pgSQL origin has not nothing similar too. Moreover it (ADA language) was designed as a safe, very verbose language without implicit conventions. I think we have different positions, because we see different usage, based on, probably, a different programming style. I can understand the request for special common notation for access for routine parameters. But the "in" keyword for this case is not good, and I really think it is better to give some freedom to the user to choose their own label, if we don't know the best one. > If "in." would work, due to "in" being a reserved SQL keyword, > don't you think the benefits of a SQL standardized solution would outweigh > our > personal preferences on what word each one of us prefer? > I know that "in" is a reserved word in SQL, but I have not any knowledge of it being used as alias in SQL functions or in SQL/PSM functions. > /Joel >
