Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > As I've said before, I believe that the root cause of this problem is > that using the same syntax for variables and column names is a bad > idea in the first place. If we used $foo or ?foo or ${foo} or $.foo > or &&foo!!$#? to mean "the parameter called foo", then this would all > be a non-issue.
If this were PL/perl, or PL/almost-anything-except-SQL, I could get behind such a proposal. But it's not, it's SQL; and SQL doesn't do things that way. SQL's idea of disambiguation is qualified names. And even more to the point: to the extent you think that weird syntax might be a suitable solution, you have to keep in mind that the SQL committee could take over any such syntax at the drop of a hat. See the recent unpleasantness concerning => ... 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