Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> One reason to argue for the other way is that maybe it wouldn't only
>> be consulted by plpgsql. In particular I can easily imagine SQL
>> functions having the same issue as soon as someone gets around to
>> letting them use names for their parameters.
> I don't have a strong feeling on the core issue but I don't agree with
> this point. AIUI, we are implementing multiple behaviors here for
> reasons of backward and competing-product compatibility. Presumably,
> if we're starting from scratch, we'll pick a sensible behavior -
> probably error in the case of SQL - and stick with it.
Fair enough. I'll start writing the custom GUC then.
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
