Andrew Chernow <a...@esilo.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> (But having said that, an alternate qualification name is something
>> that could be implemented if there were any agreement on what to use.)
> Would something like ARG.name be acceptable?
It all depends on how likely you think it is that the function would use
a table name or alias matching ARG (or any other proposal).
It's certainly true that the function name itself is not immune from
conflicts of that sort ... in fact I think we saw a bug report recently
from someone who had intentionally chosen a plpgsql function name equal
to a table name used in the function :-(. So I'm not wedded to the
function name entirely. But it has precedent in plpgsql, and that
precedent came from Oracle, so I don't think we should lightly make SQL
functions do something different.
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
