"Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 7/18/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1. It's ludicrous to argue that "standards compliance" requires the >> behavior-as-submitted. plpgsql is not specified by the SQL standard.
> Yes, but it would be a good feature addition to plpgsql. > Currently there is no way to suppress the local variable > creation. The proposed behaviour would give that possibility. Why would anyone consider that a "feature"? >> 2. Not having the parameter names available means that you don't have >> access to their types either, which is a big problem for polymorphic >> functions. > This does not make sense as Postgres does not support > polymorphic table columns... No, but it certainly supports polymorphic function output parameters, and that's what these really are. > I think thats the point - it should not be just syntactic sugar for > OUT parameters, let it be different. Why? All you're doing is proposing that we deliberately cripple the semantics. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers