2008/9/2 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2008/9/2 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> BTW, there are actually two separate issues here: input parameters and >>> output parameters. After brief thought it seems like we should enforce >>> uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names for IN parameters (including >>> INOUT), and separately enforce uniqueness of non-omitted parameter names >>> for OUT parameters (including INOUT). > >> It's well thought, but I afraid so this can hide some bug, and it's >> little bit dangerous. > >> I thing, so we can simply duplicate values in result then allowing >> duplicate params in function. > > Um ... what? I'm not sure what behavior you're proposing here. > > regards, tom lane >
I am sorry - I really have to learn english. Simply I don't thing, so duplicit OUT parameters is good idea, but I am haven't strong objections - some programmer's bugs are visible in this case. regards Pavel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
