On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I think there are basically three behaviors that we could offer: >> >> 1. Resolve ambiguous names as plpgsql (historical PG behavior) >> 2. Resolve ambiguous names as query column (Oracle behavior) >> 3. Throw error if name is ambiguous (useful for finding problems) > > 4. Resolve ambiguous names as query column, but throw warning > > #4 would be my vote, followed by #3. To be perfectly honest, I'd be a > whole lot happier with a pl/pgsql that let me prefix variable names with > a '$' or similar to get away from this whole nonsense. I've been very > tempted to tell everyone I work with to start prefixing their variables > names with '_' except that it ends up looking just plain ugly.
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. :-) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
