Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dimitri Fontaine > <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: >> I think the best choice is to only accept qualified parameter names in >> SQL functions (function_name.parameter_name). If a referenced table >> share the function's name, ERROR out and HINT to alias the table name. >> >> If we allow more than that, we're opening the door to ambiguity, bug >> reports, and more than that costly migrations. I don't see any benefit >> in having to audit all SQL functions for ambiguity on a flag day, when >> this could be avoided easily. > > That syntax is sufficiently unwieldly that few people will want to use > it in real life, but certainly the backward compatibility problem is > much less than with what Tom proposed.
Well, we would still support positional arguments like $1 $2 etc, right? In Pavel's example I wouldn't mind about using the "values" parameter name but would stick to using $1. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
