Tom Lane wrote:
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.
If the concern is portability, (ANYTHING).name won't work. You would have to
stick with function.name or support both styles.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
