Andrew Chernow <a...@esilo.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. I find the recent SQL drafts pretty darn opaque, but I think that SQL:2008 6.6 <identifier chain> syntax rule 8)b)ii) If N = 2 and PIC1 is equivalent to the <qualified identifier> of a <routine name> RN whose scope contains IC and whose associated <SQL parameter declaration list> includes an SQL parameter SP whose <SQL parameter name> is equivalent to I2, then PIC2 is a candidate basis of IC, the scope of PIC2 is the scope of SP, and the referent of PIC2 is SP. is describing the style "function_name.argument_name". So it's not just Oracle setting that precedent. 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